From MAILER-DAEMON Sun Jan 14 07:40:08 2001
Received: from listserv.albany.edu (listserv.albany.edu [169.226.1.24])
by luna.oit.unc.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA05032
for ; Sun, 14 Jan 2001 07:40:05 -0500 (EST)
Received: from listserv.albany.edu (listserv.albany.edu [169.226.1.24])
by listserv.albany.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id HAA00160
for ; Sun, 14 Jan 2001 07:43:01 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <200101141243.HAA00160@listserv.albany.edu>
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 07:42:59 -0500
From: "L-Soft list server at University at Albany (1.8d)"
Subject: File: "BEE-L LOG0009A"
To: adamf@METALAB.UNC.EDU
Content-Length: 199247
Lines: 4119
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2000 20:45:19 -0700
Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology
Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology
From: "Susan L. Nielsen"
Organization: Oregon VOS
Subject: Re: Beesize(was: Man created varroa problem)
In-Reply-To: <200008312344.TAA06567@listserv.albany.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
On Fri, 1 Sep 2000, James Kilty wrote:
> >... then feral hives should not
> >succumb to varroa pressure.
> So
> therefore many feral colonies should have survived if it were the *only*
> factor. Since they didn't, it cannot be the only factor. Enlighten me
> please.
Not me. I didn't think it required an explicit statement. The evidence
of the natural experiment suggests that feral hives, with smaller
cell sizes, did succumb to Varroa infestation. In the absence of a
controlled experiment, it is a strongly suggestive description of
the situation.
It would be wonderful of the solution were as simple as a new (old)
cell size, but casual observations are not convincing in light of the
disappearance of feral colonies of A. mellifera across Varroa blighted
continents.
It would take enlightening to demonstrate another reason for the
coincidence.
Susan
--
Susan Nielsen, Shambles Workshops |"...Gently down the
Beavercreek, OR, USA |stream..."
snielsen@orednet.org | -- Anon.
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2000 22:52:48 -0500
Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology
Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology
From: Dina and Don Hess
Subject: Re: cell size
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
albert cannon wrote:
> Sorry i cant beleive that so called downsizing alters genetic structures
> just like that. I was taught that you cant breed dogs without tails just
> by cutting tails off and then breeding from the dogs.
...
> also does the size of the foundation cell determine the size of the
> Queen cells?
What I could gather perusing some of the information at beesource.com, the use
of larger cell size was successful in producing larger bees. Proposing that
this size can be passed to offspring at first sounds like Lamarkian evolution
(I think that's the term) where acquired traits are thought to be passed to
the offspring. In the case of bees, this may be partially valid. Larger bees
may be more likely to produce larger cells because of physical reasons rather
than genetic direction; the larger cells subsequently would continue to
support larger workers. This may include making larger queen cells as well.
That could be why the work the Lusbys are doing would require gradual
adjustment in foundation cell size -- workers grown on foundation with larger
than "natural" cell size may have a difficult time drawing out comb that's
significantly smaller than what they're built for.
A small experiment I would find interesting, similar to something suggested in
a recent post also, would be to take a start of bees grown on large foundation
(the larger the better for the purposes of the experiment) and grow them in a
top bar hive with frequent harvests of the brood comb while charting any
change in cell size. Successive generations of workers should tend to shift
comb cells to the natural size determined by whatever genetic and climactic
factors may be involved. Maybe when I start beekeeping with a top bar hive
I'll deliberately try to find a local beekeeper using relatively large celled
foundation to get a start. :)
The impression I got regarding the Lusbys' work was that much of the debate
that refers to it addresses a different issue. The Lusbys seemed to be
advocating return to "natural" cell-size for foundation in hives. Much of the
debate I've seen on the list makes reference to 4.9mm cell-size. This would
be the natural cell-size only for certain regions of the world. The direction
that the debate has taken seems to be more of discussing whether "smaller is
better" with regards to varroa control. I gather that feral hives tend to
fall fairly readily to varroa which would seem to argue against the hypothesis
that natural cell size confers significant protection (depending on how
quickly bees will revert to natural cell size). If cell size is to be
investigated to fight varroa it may need to be smaller than "natural" and thus
could add its own stresses to the bees.
Don Hess - a not-yet-neophyte beekeeper :)
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2000 16:51:13 +1200
Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology
Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology
From: Barry Donovan
Subject: Varroa size
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Greetings All,
There has been a great deal of discussion about bee and cell size, and possible influences on Varroa.
I've just measured the width of seven female Varroa - all I have on hand. I used a binocular microscope with a graduated scale in one eyepiece. The biggest mite is 1.72 mm across, three are 1.69 mm, one is 1.68 mm and the two smallest are 1.65 mm. The difference between the biggest and smallest is thus 0.07 mm, and this difference in width is obvious under the microscope.
So with this much variation in just seven Varroa that are almost certainly all descended from just one incursion into New Zealand, how much size variation is there in long-established populations? Also, because Varroa mate in every generation, (about 3 weeks) could not natural selection operate much more quickly for changes in cell size than honey bees in which the sexes mate about once a year?
Regards,
Barry Donovan.
New Zealand.
DonovanB@Crop.cri.nz
________
CAUTION: The information contained in this email is privileged and confidential. If you read this message and you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution or reproduction of all or part of the contents is prohibited. If you receive this message in error, please notify the sender immediately.
Any opinions or views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender and may not represent those of their employer.
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2000 19:10:09 +1200
Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology
Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology
From: Robert Mann
Subject: genetic theory
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Peter Borst did the Ivy League some credit in writing:
> Beekeepers gathered them into
apiaries, which probably produced some unnatural overcrowding, which
encourages disease ...
> and for better or worse, we are responsible for
their well being.
I believe any scientist (or medico or vet) would agree fully.
This is a solid, if slightly vague, basis for discussion.
> It *is possible* for species to be
changed into other species, as proven by the scientists currently at
work. I will not comment on whether this is a good thing or not, but
simply state that if humans can alter species by altering the genes,
then the potential was there to begin with, and nature certainly
*could* have used it.
Many say so, but that's a mistake. Genetic modification (GM)
generally imposes gene-insertions that *could not* occur in nature. Some
of the processes used are drastically different from anything in nature;
others are modified virus infections, reminiscent of natural processes but
transposing genes between remote species (e.g. from jellyfish into
sugar-cane or humans into cows) which do not normally exchange genes.
> Whether evolution is a fact or a theory has become moot with the
>arrival of genetic engineering.
I think this remark is not central to the argument, but I want to
mention that the facts gleaned from fossils, augmented recently by
molecular details, very very strongly suggest that evolution has occurred.
The body of evidence from which this deduction flows is so huge, so
multi-faceted, and so coherent, that evolution is regarded as a fact by
almost every scientist today.
This has very little connection to the issue of GM.
>I wonder how many would be in favor of genetically altering the honey
bee to combat the varroa?
This is the question I raised some months ago.
You can safely assume some gene-manipulators are trying to get funding to
'improve' Apis spp by transgenic expts. It will be prudent to refrain
from such unknown territory, while expanding conventional genetics &
breeding of bees.
> Obviously, Apis cerana has some form of
defense that it uses against the varroa. Perhaps this could be
transferred to Apis mellifera?
The idea that any such trait is based on only one gene, or on some
very small package of genes, is implausible. Furthermore, the methods
available today to insert genes into Apis spp are extremely crude and
unpredictable. Unforeseen pathogens could well result, and the probability
of any benefit is tiny.
I would urge that no such expts be permitted, at least until a very
careful and public investigation had been completed into the proposed
expts.
As a dedicated egg-head I am pleased at the thoughts from Cornell.
They are way ahead of the Lysenkoist speculations about cell-size.
R
-
Robt Mann
consultant ecologist
P O Box 28878 Remuera, Auckland 1005, New Zealand
(9) 524 2949
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2000 10:16:01 +0200
Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology
Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology
From: Mike Allsopp
Organization: ARC PLANT PROTECTION
Subject: Cell size & varroa
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Greetings all
I have been following the deluge of messages on this subject with
some interest. I was pretty determined not to comment beyond my
earlier message (that in South Africa 4.9mm foundation does not
seem to prevent varroa reproduction), but I have been tempted into
another message.
The way I see it, the first question to be asked is not "can
European bees deal with 4.9mm foundation" but rather "does
4.9mm foundation make any difference in terms of varroa
virulence". In South Africa we will not be pursuing this issue, as we
already use (basically) 4.9mm foundation - but if I was in the USA
and I wanted to see if there was anything in the story, I would think
that the following would be reasonably appropriate.
(1) Select two European genetic lines from queen producers (say
NWC and Italian) and purchase 30 sister queens of each group.
(2) For each line, set up 30 colonies: ten with 4.9mm, 10 with
5.7mm, and 10 with just wax strips to allow them to produce
natural comb. {If you want to "retrogress" them, then you will need
more groups (say 5.1mm, 5.3mm, 5.5mm) and more queens}.
(3) Let them settle down for a couple of months, and then introduce
200 varroa (all from common source) into each colony.
(4) Monitor mite population dynamics, mite reproduction in worker
brood cells, and colony dynamics for 3 years, stirring occasionally.
At the end of this you might know if foundation cell size has any
noticeable effect on varroa reproduction - but you will certainly
know what cell size your bees prefer (the natural comb), and I
would be loathe to deviate from this.
And of course this whole process with take years and cost many
tens of thousands of dollars. But this (or probably something much
more complicated) is the only way to safe & certain answers.
As far as researchers not lining up to do this work: find the money
and you will find the researchers.
Or you could all work with AHB's which like small cells, which may
or may not be the reason that they may or may not be able to deal
with varroa.
Lastly, I've had a couple of enquiries in the past few days for
sources of 4.9mm wax foundation in South Africa - which I am not
going to answer - because I am certain to give you the names of
only some of those with 4.9mm foundation in South Africa - and
then I will be accused of favouritism or worse. Instead, please ask
Robbie Post (who is on Bee-L) and is currently the secretary of the
Federation of SA Bee Associations to provide you a list and
contact details of all in South Africa that might be able to provide
the 4.9mm foundation.
best regards
Mike Allsopp
Stellenbosch, South Africa
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2000 11:47:56 +0300
Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology
Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology
From: Jean-Jean Menier
Subject: Re: Seek information on France - Provence and bees in Paris park
...
Comments: To: r@jobhaus.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Robert, and all beekeepers,
I consider Bob's query as rather generalist, this is why I send it to
bee-l. Apologies to those who have an other opinion.
There are lots of hives in Paris. On buildings, in parks, ....
The most famous are (were ? ...) those on the roof of the Opera.
The most famous place for parisian bee hives is the Jardins du Luxembourg
for bee hives. There are hives (including one in a cello !) for public
lectures (lectures saturdays afternoon if my memory is good).
We have some hives in the Jardin des Plantes (where I work at the
entomology Dept, but beetles section !) which is not surprising considering
the name of that park !
I am a member of a society working for the introduction and developments of
bee hives in public gardens. Address is : "Les Abeilles" (it is a small
shop), rue de la Butte aux Cailles, Paris 13ème. We have hives in the Parc
Georges Brassens, Paris 15ème.
Lavendar honey. The most famous place is the Plateau de Valensol, where
there are thousands (yes, thousands !) of hives at the right time for
lavendar honey. Too many hive in my opinion ....
Hope this helps, but it may come a bit late if you arrive in France
september 2nd !
Good luck anyway.
At 08:12 31/08/00 -0700, you wrote:
>Hi all,
>
>I have somehow been bumped from the list and haven't been able to get back
on.
>
>Could anyone help me out with information quickly - I am headed to France
>and Italy for two weeks starting on Saturday, Sept. 2. I know that Provence
>has extraordinary honey given the Lavendar growing region, so does anyone
>have specific suggestions of towns or locations, etc. I also recall that
>there was a specific park in Paris which had a dozen or so hives. Having bees
>in San Francisco, I know how wonderful a city base can be and wanted to
>locate the hives for a visit if possible. I will also be in Tuscany in case
>there was anything specific to that region.
>
>Thanks for your consideration.
>
>robert@citybees.com
>
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2000 06:57:52 EDT
Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology
Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology
From: Michael Housel
Subject: Re: Beesize(was: Man created varroa problem)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
I study local feral hives. The hives that are surveying are the open outside
the tree (Orlando's weather permits) ones. The ones inside walls, fire
chimney, and dressers are hives that have open area under them. All the
hives have mites but the ones with an area underneath them of open space are
survival hives. The small hive beetle ate the center brood and pollin from
the hives but they survived. Weaken but not gone they have went thur another
year. Open Bottom is the only common item. The bees that are weaken fall
from the hive and or can't reach the 25 to 40 feet height where the hive is
located. If propolis, pollin, or honey nectar had been the answer the hives
would have a common plant/flower in the area. Ants have cleaned up weaken
hives but they can be chemically controlled away from the honey and products.
I use a queen extruder inplace of a floor and these have are starting to
produce excess. Michael Housel Orlandobee
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2000 07:13:00 -0400
Reply-To: arl@q7.net
Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology
From: Al
Subject: Re: Evolution of varroa
In-Reply-To: <200009010334.XAA12101@listserv.albany.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Dave Cushman writes:
>Whatever the process was...Varroa is "out of the bag" now and we humans do
>not have the millions of years to spare for a new balance to be struck.
>There have been a lot of comments that the whole varroa problem is
>man created. This is obviously quite true, but one must remember that
>beekeeping, too, is man created. Up until 150 years ago, honeybees
>were still essentially wild creatures. Beekeepers gathered them into
>apiaries, which probably produced some unnatural overcrowding, which
>encourages disease.
There is a good deal of thought today that the greatest threat to a species
is mobility. Man did not create the mite problem by changing the cell size
of the European honey bee. Man created the problem when either the European
bee was moved into Varroa territory or Varroa was moved out of its native
land.
But this does not mean that we will have to wait millions of years for
answers. Honeybees are loaded with thousands of genes that represent the
traits needed for survival. Unlike humans who are able to add behaviors by
learning, honeybees have their entire "program" included in their DNA. As
the pressure of Varroa increases the breeding populations of honeybees will
change and recessive genes will have a greater chance of coming together as
the population declines. The chances of finding these genes is also improved
as breeding programs reduce the amount of chance involved.
The argument that larger cell sizes have helped Varroa would be based on the
pressure placed on the breeding population of honeybees by beekeepers. As
beekeepers desired "bigger bees" they encouraged the continued breeding of
bees that did well on the larger celled foundation. The problem with that is
that until the Varroa problems some areas had healthy feral populations that
were outside of the breeding pressure. In areas like Florida and Texas the
T-mite problem did not eliminate the feral colonies.
I would suggest that the best we can hope for in smaller cell sizes is some
pressure against the Varroa. Of course right now we are just hoping for
another two generations of beekeepers.
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2000 08:44:57 -0400
Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology
Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology
From: Martin Damus
Subject: genetic theory -Reply
Comments: To: robt_m@TALK.CO.NZ
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
> Obviously, Apis cerana has some form of
defense that it uses against the varroa. Perhaps this could be
transferred to Apis mellifera?
Apis cerana drills a hole in the cap of drone cells. If they detect varroa, they haul the pupa out and dispose of it. All GM 'products' currently available are simple insertions of a very small number (usually one) of genes. To transpose such a behaviour from one species to another is, for now, truly beyond our ability, since it almost certainly involves a large number of genes. Maybe in a million years Apis mellifera will evolutionarily 'learn' to do this too. Maybe we can speed it up by selection. Maybe we can select for a different defense, maybe our bees will evolve a novel defense. I don't think we'll be able to 'engineer' them to.
Martin Damus
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2000 07:01:53 -0400
Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology
Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology
From: Bill Truesdell
Subject: Re: Beesize(was: Man created varroa problem)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
James Kilty asked, as did several others, if cell size is the contributing
factor to control Varroa, then why do feral colonies die off?
We have an excellent experiment which has already been conducted. Bees were
introduced to the US many hundreds of years ago, well before the artificial
increase in cell size. So the bees have had hundreds of years to
accommodate to so called natural cell size, yet the feral bees were the
first to succumb to varroa. Nature has run the experiment and we have the
results.
Another small point which also has been beaten to death, but keeps coming
up, when the term Varroa resistance is used, it means Varroa tolerant. You
might develop fully resistant bees, but what we really want is varroa
tolerance so we have a hive of bees that live comfortably with varroa,
tracheal and the like without massive die-off.
And to say that the trait cannot be passed down flies in the face of nature
and the Varroa tolerant Apis Cerrana, who seem not to have found out that
they are not allowed to pass on the trait. Probably because they do not
have the internet yet.
Bill Truesdell
Bath, ME
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2000 14:50:41 +0200
Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology
Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology
From: "GUILLAUME, Rene"
Subject: Re: Varroa size
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Great all,
Following Barry Donovan, the average of these seven Varroas is 1.68mm, if we
take a Bee with size = 12mm, we can make comparison with a man at 1.70 m
with parasite dimension = 238 mm old on the back !!
Varroa is very biggest parasite in animals reign !!!
I don't think to change the dimensions of cells will be better because Api
Cerana is concerned also by Varroa in natural trees-hives (unspoiled colony)
but A.Cerana can clean there hives, however Api-Mellifera is currently
helplessness.
I think this problem will be resolved by Api-Mellifera but with some time.
In effect this is not same scale in génétic life racing (in accordance to
the low of Sir Darwin) between Varroa (about 12 generations in one year) and
Api-Mellifera (about 1 generation every 4 years). At this proportionality,
Varroa is very far away in front before all the Bees (Genetic variation is
about 48 times fastened to Varroa than Bee !!!!)
So I am sure that we are responsible about propagation around the world of
Varroa and him has really knew take profit of this new opportunity for own
development.
I don't agree for chemical response because wee see in short time but I'm
sure Apistan, Clartan etc... Are more poison for our Bee than Varroa (due to
capacity of quick genetic adaptation).
Please, excuse me if my English is not correct, but it is very good
discussion.
Regards,
R. GUILLAUME {;-o)>
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2000 09:26:20 -0500
Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology
Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology
From: Michael W Stoops
Subject: Re: worker bee & sizecell size
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
If foundation cell bases determine cell size, and if feral colonies
build hives with no foundation, then cell size in feral hives should
be what we are considering to be a more natural, smaller size.
....downsizing alters genetic structures just like that.
QUERY: What if the size of the worker bee determined the size of the cell
structure built by that bee? Would our "manmade" worker bee make brood comb
in size relative to the size of the worker? "My head, thorax, whatever, is
of such a size so the cell width has to be a certain size relative to my
size." If such a postulate were true, that would explain the difficulty in
getting worker bees to work smaller cell size foundation "possibly".
We could definately look to see if there seems to be an attempt at
downsizing brood comb by feral bees as compared to that standard used in the
apiary industry.
I have access to a feral colony established inside the walls of a house. I
plan to cut the comb out and tie it into frames. With all the discussion
about cell size I think I shall try to get the bees to draw out comb in
empty frames by providing just a very thin strip of starter foundation and
see if they will draw out a smaller size cell comb.
I'm definately open for comments/suggestions.
Mike Stoops
1/2 way between Montgomery & Mobile, Alabama, USA
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2000 10:42:26 -0400
Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology
Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology
From: Adony Melathopoulos
Subject: single vs multiple gene resistance
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
>> Obviously, Apis cerana has some form of defense that it uses against the varroa. Perhaps this could be transferred to Apis mellifera?
> The idea that any such trait is based on only one gene, or on some very small package of genes, is implausible.
In fact there are many behavioral honey bee traits that can be traced back to a handful of genes, among the most famous are the 2-3 recessive loci (or discrete non-segregating chunks of DNA) that impart hygenic behavior, whereby workers abort brood cells before foulbrood can sporulate or varroa have offspring.
Nonetheless, intuitively I am drawn to Robert's arguement, there is a big difference between taking discreet genes within a species and shuffling them around compared to moving genes among species. Genes work in the context of other genes, and putting a bacterial gene in a honey bee is at a much higher risk to fail than just moving honey bee genes around; IMHO it is too foreign a context to expect things to be in balance.
I will make a case, however, that even if single gene resistance to varroa is available, through classical breeding or transgenics, it cannot expect to hold up for very long. Throughout agriculture there are numerous examples of single gene solutions to keep a crop protected by a pest or disease which do not last long. Take the numerous variaties of wheat with single gene resistance to Hessian fly or Bt-transgenic lines of corn resistant to corn borer; it does not take long for resistance to break down. Resistance of this kind is no better than applying a pesticide in terms of resistance management.
The most successful cases of resistance are those which involve many many genes working in concert. Resistance of this kind is not easy to breed for, and maintaining lines once established can be a nightmare, but once established pests and diseases are hard pressed to overcome them. Returning to the case of honey bee hygenic behavior, the character was first discovered by investigating a beekeeper's line, the Brown line, came about by repeatedly selecting for bees that survived on comb with AFB scale, NOT by selecting for hygenic behavior. Further investigation into the Brown line found that not only was hygenic behavior at work, but resistant characteristic carried by the developing larva was also at play. Many characters at work rather than one leads to more robust resistance... it only stands to reason.
But single-gene resistance varieties of crops are far more common than varieties in which multiple genes confer resistance. Why? It is easier and faster to screen and maintain lines based on a few genes than on many genes.
What does this mean?
Lines incorporating a few genes that confer resistance will give immediate relief and the quickest results, which of course is what the industry needs today. If, however, we also consider the long term health of bee stocks, large breeding programs to select for lines with multiple gene resistance to pests must also be considered.
There is no such thing as a free lunch.
Regards
Adony
Adony Melathopoulos
Apiculture Biotechnologist
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Beaverlodge Research Farm
Box CP 29
Beaverlodge, Alberta CANADA
T0H 0C0
T +1 780 354 5130
F +1 780 354 8171
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2000 09:13:07 -0600
Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology
Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology
From: Allen Dick
Subject: Re: worker bee & sizecell size
In-Reply-To: <200009011452.KAA23428@listserv.albany.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> QUERY: What if the size of the worker bee determined the size of the cell
> structure built by that bee? Would our "manmade" worker bee make brood comb
> in size relative to the size of the worker? "My head, thorax, whatever, is
> of such a size so the cell width has to be a certain size relative to my
> size."
Nicely put.
One of the many things that seem to be missing from this discussion is facts,
like the fact that bees in any one hive already vary in size considerably and
the measurements we discuss are averages. Up to 100% differences in weight
between individual worker bees can be observed. How can they agree on what size
of cell to build? Is it really important?
Individual worker bee size depends on nutrition and other factors such as
genetics, which can vary a lot in any given hive and from season to season.
There is much more speculation and assumption in this discussion than
measurement and observation. As has been pointed out previously by one astute
member, some of the experiments necessary to debunk this amazing attractive myth
are already running in nature and in our hives, if only we can push away from
the desk, set aside our prejudices and pet theories, and go outside and take a
look.
allen
---
A Beekeeper's Diary: http://www.internode.net/HoneyBee/Diary/
Package bees, winter loss, fondant, Pierco vs. Permadent vs. dark comb,
unwrapping, splitting, raising queens, AFB, varroa, protein patties, moving
bees, pollination experiences, daily mumblings and more... Thousands served...
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2000 10:08:35 -0500
Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology
Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology
From: Michael W Stoops
Subject: Re: (Man created varroa problem)
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
...natural experiment suggests that feral hives, with smaller cell sizes,
did succumb to Varroa infestation.
What about those rare occassions where a feral colony is found, and evidence
might suggest that it has been in continual existance for more than a couple
of years? Might we beekeepers use these colonies in an attempt to determine
if they are, in fact, resistant to mite infestations. Then, if so
determined, use them in an attempt to determine the causitive factors for
this resistance to mites? I have several "beehavers" in the area whom I
hope to approach in an interest in determining just how "mite resistant"
their colonies are. If the colonies "seem" to be mite resistant in some
way, I hope to encourage them to make splits next spring and buy several
splits from each. Just looking for a way with some modicum of scientific
method.
Mike Stoops
1/2 way between Montgomery & Mobile, Alabama, USA
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2000 11:37:01 -0400
Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology
Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology
From: Peter Borst
Subject: Small cell size and varroa -- A summary
Comments: To: IrishBeekeeping@listbot.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
Small cell size and varroa -- A summary and assessment of current information.
Since varroa has become such a terrible and intractable pest for
beekeepers, many people seek a "final solution" for this problem. The
idea of using foundation with smaller (4.9 mm) cells to reduce varroa
populations has received quite a bit of attention on the internet, if
not elsewhere. I have attempted to find out as much as possible about
this and wish to summarize what I have found.
First, I feel that no treatment that shows promise should be
dismissed. IPM (integrated pest management) techniques are frequently
aimed at *reducing* pests and are often used in combination for
mutual enhancement. Very often these treatments vary in their
effectiveness and have to be supplemented with chemical control
(which also varies in effectiveness).
In order to give this treatment a thorough evaluation I feel it must
be tested in different regions and in different apiaries. It must be
tested side by side with control hives (non-treatment or other
treatment hives). The method of setting up an apiary to test a
treatment can be debated but a significant reduction in varroa must
be shown between treatment and non-treatment hives in the same apiary.
There have been a number of theories as to why this treatment would
work and why it hasn't caught on. The idea that bee supply
manufacturers and research institutions do not want it -- is
erroneous. The cost of tooling up to produce odd-sized foundation is
not that great and would be recouped quickly *if* enough material was
sold. The rollers used to stamp foundation wear out and are replaced
often enough that to add odd-sized rollers could be done fairly
easily. At this point it is already possible to obtain small sized
foundation from Africa and drone foundation from U.S. suppliers.
The theory that changing cell size in the early 1900s caused the
varroa problem simply doesn't hold water. The idea that varroa
probably moved into Apis mellifera hives at the same time as the
experiments with 5.4 mm foundation and therefore these events are
connected is an unprovable conjecture at best. Modern beekeeping was
barely 50 years old at that time and there were so many changes
taking place that cause and effect connections simply cannot be
feasibly drawn at this late date.
The bottom line, however, is that it doesn't matter. If a technique
works, a theory for why it works is not necessary and can be
generated at some later point. In my opinion, the following theory is
more plausible: Varroa prefer larger cells and in the species Apis
cerana they are seldom found in the worker cells. The worker cells of
Apis mellifera are larger than cerana, so they are more attractive to
the varroa. But this is good, because if the varroa can be driven out
of the worker cells by whatever method, it is possible that the
colony will be able to survive the infestation. Furthermore, the
addition of 2 or 3 drone combs to *attract* the mites (to be removed
and frozen twice a month) would constitute an excellent IPM plan.
The notion that this technique is being suppressed is erroneous.
Research institutes are not all beholden to chemical companies. Some
researchers may have received money from corporations but I don't
think this has altered the direction of research *as a whole*. The
USDA is promoting screened bottom boards as a method of reducing
mites. Who makes money off of this? It isn't even a patentable idea,
anyone can make their own device and cheaply, to boot. The blueprints
for the Ontario Pollen Trap were released into the public domain
years ago -- bee researchers have shown a willingness to share new
ideas and are not in this field to get rich, in any case!
Dr. Erickson (USDA) has done some controlled studies of the small
cell size and has reported promising results. He told me that, due to
some problems unrelated to the merit of the study, the wide
publication of his results was delayed. Personally, I am disturbed by
the fact that the two mostly widely publicized studies (possibly the
only ones) have been conducted in southern Arizona. This area has
been infiltrated by Africanized bees and that alone could account for
reductions in varroa populations. It has been reported that the
Africanized bee in South America can coexist with the mite.
It is the bee industry that has demanded and gotten the chemical
controls because they have millions of hives at stake. They want
something powerful and effective that produces quick and observable
results. There are many problems associated with chemical control of
pests and this issue will never go away. The pesticide treadmill is
one we may never get off. The whole genetic engineering industry uses
this as a primary justification for their work, as does the organic
farming community. Everyone wants to get off of pesticides, because
they are ruining the air and water of this planet. No one wants to
see the cancer rates continue to rise. The problem is that we are
addicted to these techniques and cannot go off "cold turkey".
In order for a large scale experiment to be conducted there has to be
*credible* justification. The promise of widespread adoption is not a
requirement. It is doubtful that commercial beekeepers would adopt
the technique of adding and replacing drone combs twice a month, and
yet this is being tested by a number of organizations. It is true
that the replacement of all the combs in all the hives would be a
staggering expense.
I don't think all the combs would have to be replaced. Only the brood
area has to be modified. This could be a problem for all beekeepers
who do not use queen excluders. For those that do, the new combs
could be drawn in the supers and the honey extracted. Then the queen
could be confined to one or two boxes with an excluder and forced to
lay in the smaller cells. The old supers could still be used for
honey storage, above the excluder. (Many beekeepers simply don't
believe that they could incorporate excluders into their operation.
It would also be an additional expense.)
The biggest problem facing beekeepers today is the sagging price of
honey. If honey was worth more, then labor intensive or expensive
treatments would be more feasible. The reputation of honey as an
attractive product has to be reestablished and promoted. The thinner
the profit margin, the less eager any beekeepers are to take risks.
Small beekeeping associations are in the best position to sponsor or
conduct experiments. It is essential, however, to be conservative in
reporting results. Exaggerated claims or unrepeatable conclusions
will only generate prejudice and prevent the truth from being
discovered.
Please note:
The opinions expressed here are mine alone and are not intended to
reflect Cornell University policy officially or unofficially. All
time and effort spent researching this topic was my own and not
underwritten by my employer. I grant permission to quote or reproduce
this document provide attribution is given as follows:
Peter Borst. Ithaca, NY.
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2000 12:09:38 -0500
Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology
Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology
From: Barry Birkey
Subject: A call for research and foundation
In-Reply-To: <200009011545.LAA25591@listserv.albany.edu>
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
> In order to give this treatment a thorough evaluation I feel it must
> be tested in different regions and in different apiaries. It must be
> tested side by side with control hives (non-treatment or other
> treatment hives). The method of setting up an apiary to test a
> treatment can be debated but a significant reduction in varroa must
> be shown between treatment and non-treatment hives in the same apiary.
> The bottom line, however, is that it doesn't matter. If a technique
> works, a theory for why it works is not necessary and can be
> generated at some later point.
Peter -
We all need to hear what you just said. The discussion we are having on
small cell size in relation to being an effective method for mite treatment
at the very least, is good. Everyone is expressing their own feeling about
the subject but many times I read remarks that show very little to no
reading of existing information on this topic has been done, even though
it's readily available for all on the web.
This technique of keeping bees on 4.9mm cells is working as the Lusby's are
living proof. You can debate why it's working but not the fact that "it" is
working and has been for quite a few years with their production growing
every year. I find it to be such a common practice among certain people on
this list to always want to find the fault with something or someone instead
of whatever good can be found. The FACT is that the Lusby's themselves state
right in the article that all can read, if only they would do it, I quote:
"This shows breeding is not all the solution. We figure comb is 1/3, diet is
1/3 and breeding is 1/3. Comb must be put in by half (5) to full boxes to
work."
http://www.beesource.com/pov/lusby/abjdec1997.htm
I get the feeling that most people think all you need to do is throw a bunch
of 4.9 foundation in their hives and the mites will disappear. No where in
all the info that is posted about the Lusby's work is a claim made that 4.9
cell size will rid a hive of mites, no where. Yet a lot of people are using
this assumption in their reasoning. Broad statements are made where finer
details need to be understood. The mites are still in their hives but at
extremely low levels. They also feel that by having their bees on a natural
size that has no chemical residues in the wax or honey, (go and read the
literature for their definition of natural) gives the bee a better standing
to deal with secondary diseases.
This same article shows that "a significant reduction in varroa must be
shown between treatment and non-treatment hives in the same apiary."
I quote from it:
"On 11 September Dr. Eric H. Erickson, the director of the Carl Hayden Bee
Research Facility in Tucson, Arizona, went with us to two bee locations, in
unisolated areas, to test for both tracheal mites and Varroa mites. Samples
taken in the center of the brood nest also contained drones where possible.
We choose unisolated locations because we wanted to show him, to beat the
problem, one must be able to accomplish business as normal in doing bee
management within the field. Please note that beekeepers around us have
severely lost bees, as we ourselves have, to both mites over the years. When
taken, several adjacent yards within 2 miles were being treated, crashing,
or being fed to keep them alive. Our bees were building; and at the Carmen
yard were very fast drawing new foundation."
Granted, this is not a "controlled" study, but enough there to warrant a
scientific research with further studies on small cell size. Let's start
putting our energy into soliciting Dadant to produce 4.9 foundation and our
scientists (logically this should be Dr Erickson) to pick up the research on
this again. As someone else wrote, let's put up or shut up. If both of these
contacts received sincere requests of those mentioned, I'll bet wheels would
turn. They won't if all they hear is silence. I challenge everyone to act.
Regards,
Barry
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2000 10:53:17 -0700
Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology
Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology
From: John Edwards
Organization: Hayden Bee Research Center, USDA-ARS,Tucson, Arizona
Subject: Re: (Man created varroa problem)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Michael W Stoops wrote:
> What about those rare occasions where a feral colony is found, and evidence
> might suggest that it has been in continual existance for more than a couple
> of years? >>>>>>>> I have several "beehavers" in the area whom I
> hope to approach in an interest in determining just how "mite resistant"
> their colonies are. If the colonies "seem" to be mite resistant in some
> way, I hope to encourage them to make splits next spring and buy several
> splits from each.
> Mike Stoops
> 1/2 way between Montgomery & Mobile, Alabama, USA
Sounds like a very workable plan. I think even "resistant" colonies can be
overwhelmed by exposure to large mite populations, so I wouldn't throw promising
colonies into the meat-grinder in heavily infested beeyards without keeping some
relatively isolated backups.
-----------------------------------------------------------
John F. Edwards
"Feral Bee Tracker and AHB Identifier"
Carl Hayden Bee Research Center
Tucson, Arizona 85719
http://gears.tucson.ars.ag.gov/home/edwards/edwards.html
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2000 11:39:54 -0700
Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology
Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology
From: John Edwards
Organization: Hayden Bee Research Center, USDA-ARS,Tucson, Arizona
Subject: Re: Small cell size and varroa -- A summary
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Peter Borst wrote:
> Small cell size and varroa -- A summary and assessment of current information.
> Personally, I am disturbed by
> the fact that the two mostly widely publicized studies (possibly the
> only ones) have been conducted in southern Arizona. This area has
> been infiltrated by Africanized bees and that alone could account for
> reductions in varroa populations. It has been reported that the
> Africanized bee in South America can coexist with the mite.
Thank you for writing up this very logical and insightful message, and yes, it
bothers me also that the only studies on this problem have been done in
africanized honey bee areas. The AHB has certainly controlled and changed the
behavior of beekeepers, and I cannot see why the mites' behavior would not also be
changed by the experience.
-----------------------------------------------------------
John F. Edwards
Carl Hayden Bee Research Center
Agricultural Research Service - USDA
Tucson, Arizona 85719
http://198.22.133.109/
http://gears.tucson.ars.ag.gov/home/edwards/edwards.html
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2000 13:20:27 -0500
Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology
Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology
From: Barry Birkey
Subject: Re: A call for research and foundation
In-Reply-To: <200009011727.NAA29831@listserv.albany.edu>
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
> Granted, this is not a "controlled" study, but enough there to warrant a
> scientific research with further studies on small cell size. Let's start
I need to add to this.
I have talked with the Lusby's about their work and many times they have
pointed out to me that they are beekeepers that work the field and know the
field methodology. They are able to make it work in the field and are more
than happy to show anyone how it's done. They have put forth their own ideas
and reasons as to *why* it works, but it is not up to them to prove it in
the lab. Their simple approach to the lab is, "you tell us why it works."
They shouldn't have to do both. So in our discussion about their ideas,
remember, they have done their part to make it work in the field. It's the
lab side that is weak. They are "pleading" (my word) to have their work
scrutinized and tested by the labs. Ask that Dr. Erickson and his lab would
pick up the research they were doing a few years back on the small cell and
test the Lusby's bees. That would be a start and a quick indication to
whether or not there is really something to the smaller cell that factors
into the Lusby's method.
I forgot to include contact info last time so here it is.
Dr. Eric H. Erickson
email: eric@tucson.ars.ag.gov
fax: 520-670-6493
work: 520-670-6380 X104
http://gears.tucson.ars.ag.gov
Carl Hayden Bee Research Center
DADANT & SONS, INC. (main office)
51 South 2nd St.
Hamilton, IL 62341-1399
Ph: 217-847-3324
Toll Free Order: 1-800-637-7468 (7am-4pm CT)
Fax: 217-847-3660 (24 Hr.)
Email: Dadant@dadant.com
Contact regarding foundation: Jerry Hayes
Regards,
Barry
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2000 13:01:47 -0600
Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology
Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology
From: Dennis M Murrell
Subject: Cell Size and Varroa Tolerance
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Hello
An interesting note to the cell size controversy is that a varroa
tolerance stock has already been researched, documented and achieved in
the same geographic region where the cell size method for the control of
varroa originated.
In the August 2000 edition of the American Bee Journal, the Report
entitled "Producing Varroa-tolerant Honey Bees form Locally Adapted
Stock: A Recipe" was published. It is the latest in a series of reports
from these authors.
Both the cell size method and this recipe emphasize the need to
selectively use and propagate locally adapted stock shown to be varroa
tolerant through a forced natural selection.
Although much emphasis of the cell size method involves the preparation
and introduction of a smaller foundation, the real economic impact
involves the selection, propagation and maintenance of a varroa tolerant
stock demonstrated to retrogress to the smaller size cell and survive
mite infestation untreated. Colonies that cannot retrogress or survive
are lost.
The Recipe published in the Journal is a proven approach to achieve
varroa tolerance. Other methods of varroa control such as incorporating
varroa tolerant stock, integrated pest management techniques and
equipment modification such as smaller cell size foundation could easily
be incorporated into this recipe.
Everyone could begin with this recipe now.
Best Wishes
Dennis Murrell
(seeing that truely the squeeky wheel gets most of the grease)
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2000 22:07:07 +0200
Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology
Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology
From: "Dr. Anton Esterhuysen"
Subject: 4.9mm foundation avaiable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
If anybody are interested in 4.9mm foundation, they can visit our South
African website www.honeybadger.co.za
They can contact me at anton@honeybadger.co.za and it can be sent.
Regards
Anton Esterhuysen
Pretoria, South Africa
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2000 16:59:10 -0500
Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology
Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology
From: Barry Birkey
Subject: Dadant selling 4.9 foundation
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Greetings -
I just got the word from Dadant that a decision was made this afternoon to
start producing and selling 4.9mm foundation. They are now accepting orders
and you can expect a 4-6 week delivery time for initial start up. Once the
line is rolling you can expect normal turnover times.
They are offering it in 8-1/2" size (deep) but I understand they will
consider custom sizes. They will accept wax for foundation (working rates)
and also manufacture ones own wax into foundation. (minimum may be required)
They will accept orders by phone, email, signed fax or snail mail. I trust
plenty of people will start working with this foundation. It will be great
to see now how this works in many different areas.
Glad to pass this on and I want to thank Dadant.
-Barry
DADANT & SONS, INC. (main office)
51 South 2nd St.
Hamilton, IL 62341-1399
Ph: 217-847-3324
Toll Free Order: 1-800-637-7468 (7am-4pm CT)
Fax: 217-847-3660 (24 Hr.)
Email: Dadant@dadant.com
Jerry Hayes - Contact regarding foundation
email: class@dadant.com
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2000 15:35:36 -0700
Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology
Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology
From: John Edwards
Organization: Hayden Bee Research Center, USDA-ARS,Tucson, Arizona
Subject: Re: Dadant selling 4.9 foundation
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Barry Birkey wrote:
> I just got the word from Dadant that a decision was made this afternoon to
> start producing and selling 4.9mm foundation.
> Jerry Hayes - Contact regarding foundation
> email: class@dadant.com
And you thought no one was listening !!
- thanks, Dadant - I don't think you'll regret it.
-----------------------------------------------------------
John F. Edwards
Carl Hayden Bee Research Center
Agricultural Research Service - USDA
Tucson, Arizona 85719
http://gears.tucson.ars.ag.gov/home/edwards/edwards.html
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2000 22:58:25 +0100
Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology
Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology
From: James Kilty
Subject: Re: Beesize(was: Man created varroa problem)
In-Reply-To: <200009011314.JAA20050@listserv.albany.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
In message <200009011314.JAA20050@listserv.albany.edu>, Bill Truesdell
writes
>James Kilty asked, as did several others, if cell size is the contributing
>factor to control Varroa, then why do feral colonies die off?
Sorry I need to correct this. I was actually questioning the argument by
working with the ideas in an open way and did not suggest it was *the*
contributing factor. I know feral colonies have died out. I have seen it
locally. I saw bees on the ground last week with deformed wings (almost
non-existent actually) near feral colonies only a year after a swarm
arrived. The arguments I made implicitly questioned the strength if any
of the connection, though for economy of words I don't put everything I
know into a posting. I intend to check which, if any of my colonies bite
the legs off varroa as Germans have found with Carniolans and bred for
the trait successfully. We can all do things like that.
We are also observing "pepperpot" brood - gaps in the pattern where eggs
and unsealed brood are found at random in a slab of sealed brood - where
there is *no* sign of EFB or chalk brood - in some colonies. Initially I
put a bad dose of this in one colony down to inbreeding (tentatively).
Now I am wondering along with a colleague that we might have an example
of a hygienic bee removing varroa infested worker larvae. Perhaps
readers might suggest an obvious alternative. I must have 5 or 6 like
this (after eliminating the higher than usual number of colonies with
chalk brood this year).
The next step is to monitor the colonies carefully - are there any
larvae on the ground nearby? It is not the best time of the year to do a
study on this but mite fall after apistan in colonies with mesh floors
will at least show if the same colonies had a high, medium or low
infestation. Lower than the norm would imply something was happening if
all other factors seemed similar. Next season I will follow these
approaches up and will monitor mites where I have collected them before
apistan. Closer observation is certainly called for.
A suggestion has crept in to this discussion that contributors have
proposed that getting bees to make smaller comb implies changing the
genetics. I have not seen this proposal and certainly don't even imagine
it. Part of my concern is to marry conflicting ideas. I subscribe to the
view that our best strategy in West Cornwall (UK) is to do everything we
can to promote native bee characters alongside beekeepers who continue
to import Italian bees into a distinctly non-Mediterranean climate.
Beowulf Cooper found that A.m.m. bees were *larger* when left to build
their own comb. This would presumably also vary depending on locality as
he and others have found great variation in other characters such as the
peak time for bee populations which related to the principal forage of
the areas. I have also had a report of a locality in Scotland where the
bees were a great deal smaller than any others the beekeepers had seen.
So it would appear once again that observation and measurement is the
key.
--
James Kilty
=========================================================================
Date: Sat, 2 Sep 2000 01:11:31 -0400
Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology
Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology
From: Ted Hancock
Subject: Life in a spermatheca
Howdy,
Can anyone tell me exactly how a spermatheca works? Specifically what
mechanism is used to deliver spermatozoa to the egg? Are several (dozen?
thousand?) squirted on to the egg or is only one spermatozoan released per
egg? If it's more than one, how are the extra done away with when an
unfertilized egg is laid? After eight years of swimming around in a
spermatheca, do the spermatozoa become any less viable?
As for the "beez in tights don't get mites" debate,
I think it's quite alright,
to make a mite,
say,
to bee or not to bee,
that's the question for a mite like me,
if that cell's too tight you see,
it might not have mite space for me,
it could cramp up my third left knee,
and make me wish I was still free,
that cell is quite a fright you see,
for an incestuous vampire mite like me!
Anonymous
=========================================================================
Date: Sat, 2 Sep 2000 07:01:40 -0400
Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology
Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology
From: Bill Truesdell
Subject: Re: Varroa size- and a little extra
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
"GUILLAUME, Rene" wrote:
> I think this problem will be resolved by Api-Mellifera but with some time.
> In effect this is not same scale in génétic life racing (in accordance to
> the low of Sir Darwin) between Varroa (about 12 generations in one year) and
> Api-Mellifera (about 1 generation every 4 years). At this proportionality,
> Varroa is very far away in front before all the Bees (Genetic variation is
> about 48 times fastened to Varroa than Bee !!!!)
Rene's comments, along with several others, lead to another way of looking
at our varroa problem.
If the mite can naturally select faster than the bee, is it therefor
possible that the mite will select for better accommodation with the bee so
both can survive? It seems possible since it makes little sense to kill off
your host totally since your species also dies off. We may be too
interested in changing the bee and not also looking at the mite.
Any balance will probably not happen quickly. We are treating to kill the
mite, so any selection will be toward the mites survival in the face of the
treatment and not to come into balance with the bee.
Is the Varroa in the Southwest the same as what we have in the Northeast?
If it is not, then- hold on to your hats here- would the introduction of
the Southwest varroa to the rest of the country help select out the more
virulent Varroa? My guess is that will happen naturally over time, but by
treating, we are slowing the process down considerably.
Some philosophy.
I enjoy these discussions. I have no problem trying 4.9 foundation or
menthol cough drops or FGMO on my hive, since I am a hobbyist and have
little to lose. What does concern me is the pack attitude that comes from
single data points- it works for me therefor it works for all. Anyone who
keeps bees and has any success with new techniques, if they are honest with
others, tells them - it works for me, but your conditions may be different.
With so many variables in beekeeping that is the only honest comment we can
make until controlled experiments demonstrate the new techniques work and
why. It may not be the 4.9 foundation, but the beekeepers practices,
equipment, location, smoker fuel, nectar source, bee or even the mite that
is the reason for the control.
In the essential oils and FGMO hysteria, way too many jumped on those
bandwagons and lost everything. The problem is, we do not see them posting
on the list after the crash. Pride is one reason, but usually they just
give up beekeeping and disappear. I will never forget, during the essential
oils discussion many years ago, an email I received from a beekeeper who
lost all 40 of his hives after following that pack. I can only thank God
that I did not follow, since I was just beginning and had I lost everything
I might also have quit, like he did.
Bill Truesdell
Bath, ME
=========================================================================
Date: Sat, 2 Sep 2000 09:00:59 -0400
Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology
Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology
From: Peter Borst
Subject: Robert Mann
In-Reply-To: <200009020400.AAA16446@listserv.albany.edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
Robert,
you wrote:
As a dedicated egg-head I am pleased at the thoughts from Cornell.
They are way ahead of the Lysenkoist speculations about cell-size.
I take this as an oblique compliment. However,the thoughts are not
"from Cornell" -- they are from me and don't represent Cornell.
However, I gather from the current Scientific American magazine that
Cornell is at the forefront for Genetic Engineering. I have heard of
no GM work being done on bees. I should mention that the
".cornell.edu" suffix on my email is the same one given to all
persons associated with Cornell, be they student, dean, or janitor.
Peter Borst
plb6@cornell.edu
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2000 23:42:49 -0600
Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology
Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology
From: Allen Dick
Subject: Re: worker bee & sizecell size
In-Reply-To: <200009011517.LAA24346@listserv.albany.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> There is much more speculation and assumption in this discussion than
> measurement and observation. As has been pointed out previously by one astute
> member, some of the experiments necessary to debunk this amazing
> attractive myth are already running in nature and in our hives, if only
> we can push away from the desk, set aside our prejudices and pet theories,
> and go outside and take a look.
I think maybe I should expand on this. The kind of useful observations that
could lead to a greater understanding of the phenomena we are discussing is not
beyond any of us that have access to even one hive of bees with varroa
sufficient to be a problem.
I'll go further into this below, but first, I want to give a simple explanation
for Lusby's success in reducing the effect of varroa on their bees. IMO, we
don't need to have any 'retrogression' magic happening to explain Lusbys'
experience.
--- begin simple explanation ---
Just for clarification, I do not question whether Lusbys are getting the results
they claim or not. What I question is the explanations that are being given and
whether their methods are indeed responsible for what they observe. Others
worldwide are finding that in a few generations they can reduce the varroa
populations by 50% simply by selection from their existing stocks, so if the
Lusbys have been at it as long as they have (8? years if I recall), it is not
surprising that they are reducing the varroa levels a lot.
Moreover, since the bees in their area were becoming africanized during his
timeframe and since they are selecting bees that tolerate varroa, and since AHB
tend to tolerate varroa better than the average European strain, and since the
AHB naturally uses a cell around the 4.9 mm mark, it is not at all surprising
that in succeeding generations Lusbys find the bees they raise do well on 4.9 mm
foundation.
I frankly doubt that in non-africanized areas, that this approach will work at
all unless a non-commercial strain is dominant such as the old English bee or
the German black bee. These latter bees are smaller and were popular around the
turn of the 20th century. This fact probably accounts for the popularity of the
slightly smaller(~5.1 mm)foundation made then. During the 20th century,
Italians and other larger bees became popular and currently the popular
commercial breeds in Canada and USA and -- it seems from all reports I have
received -- in Europe as well, like to build their combs around 5.2 to 5.3 mm
across. Currently several popular foundations are around 5.4 mm which is a bit
roomy. Pierco is about 5.25 mm, a size I consider ideal for my bees. (I asked
them and they said it is perfect).
Additionally, I should hasten to add that, in regard to the varroa levels being
observed by Lusbys and the conclusions being drawn, there are many other
potential confounding factors that may have come into play. Ask any researcher
who has to observe and encourage varroa development, and I think you will be
told that varroa levels are not all that easy to predict and somewhat fickle.
Unknown local effects can cause mite populations not to mushroom as expected in
one situation, then fail to appear the next. When we are trying to raise bees,
we find that it is sometimes hard to meet our population targets due to
unexplained factors. Similarly, when trying to manage varroa for testing,
sometimes researchers find that the mites just fail to thrive when they should.
Very Frustrating.
In my case, I cannot explain why I do not as have high levels of observed varroa
as I expected this year. I just don't right now, but I know I *should* have
much more than I can find. I'm not complaining, just reporting.
--- end simple explanation ---
Albert Einstein did a lot of his best work without a laboratory or fancy
apparatus or grants. He just used his head and thought about what he knew and
about what he observed.
Each of us has hives of bees and many of us have varroa. Some of us have lots
of varroa. Maybe some of us have good observation and reasoning skills.
This spring a young scientist discovered signs of varroa mite occupation in a
package hive in a yard that had been established from Australian packages in
pretty good isolation from other hives (we thought). I mention this because
there are several interesting aspects.
* First, he saw that a mite had been reproducing there. That means that as
beekeepers, we can examine our brood comb and actually see what the mites are
doing if we are patient. We can even compare mite activity on different combs
if we have several different brands of foundation in use. We can also examine
emerging bees to see how many mites come out with them, if any. Does the type
of comb make a difference? What about the type of bee?
* Second, we can try to figure out what is going on. In the case above, do we
conclude that the mites came with the packages? Or do we conclude that the mites
somehow were picked up locally? Australia is not supposed to have varroa. we
know that bees in our area do.
What we conclude from our observations -- or whether we decide we don't have
enough information from our observations to make conclusions -- will be a test
of our objectivity and reasoning capabilities.
allen
---
A Beekeeper's Diary: http://www.internode.net/HoneyBee/Diary/
Package bees, winter loss, fondant, Pierco vs. Permadent vs. dark comb,
unwrapping, splitting, raising queens, AFB, varroa, protein patties, moving
bees, pollination experiences, daily mumblings and more... Thousands served...
=========================================================================
Date: Sat, 2 Sep 2000 11:17:06 -0400
Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology
Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology
From: Peter Borst
Subject: African bee/cell size 4.9
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
From: Dennis M Murrell
"An interesting note to the cell size controversy is that a varroa
tolerance stock has already been researched, documented and achieved in
the same geographic region where the cell size method for the control of
varroa originated.
...
"Both the cell size method and this recipe emphasize the need to
selectively use and propagate locally adapted stock shown to be varroa
tolerant through a forced natural selection."
comment:
Just what is the "locally adapted stock" they are using in the Tuscon
area? According to Dr. Erickson (in a personal communication) "feral"
hives in the Tuscon area are over 95% Africanized.
Eva Crane in her excellent book "Bees and Beekeeping" (1990), makes
the following points:
"Where colonies of both Africanized and European bees are present,
drones of the former drift into colonies of the latter, whereas
European drones rarely drift into Africanized colonies (Rinderer,
1985). ... In a 'mixed' area many more Africanized than European
drones are therefore present (in 'mixed' apiaries, 91% were
Africanized -- Rinderer, 1987)."
"To achieve isolation, a distance of 15 km has been quoted as safe,
but in Canada, Szabo (1986) found that even 20 km was not. "
"Where colonies of both Africanized and European bees are present, it
is very important to be able to distinguish between them. A simple
and rapid method ... is to make three measurements across the
parallel sides of 10 cells of natural worker comb; results (Rinderer,
1986) predict that an average of 49 mm [cell size 4.9 mm] or less
indicates comb built by Africanized honey bees, and of 52 mm [cell
size 5.2 mm] or more, by European bees. Identification is not
possible if the distance is 50 to 51 but Africanization might be
suspected."
So can the beekeepers in the Tuscon area be sure they are not using
Africanized bees (the "locally adapted stock") in their experiments?
(More detailed references available on request.)
Please note:
The opinions expressed here are mine alone and are not intended to
reflect Cornell University policy officially or unofficially. All
time and effort spent researching this topic was my own and not
underwritten by my employer. I grant permission to quote or reproduce
this document provide attribution is given as follows:
Peter Borst. Ithaca, NY.
=========================================================================
Date: Sat, 2 Sep 2000 12:59:11 -0400
Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology
Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology
From: William Morong
Subject: Cell size
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; X-MAPIextension=".TXT"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Help! This is getting confusing. If what Peter Borst posted is correct,
the bees with 4.9 mm in the Tuscon area are Africanized. I thought
everybody was supposed to be trying to eliminate AHB genes. Africanized
honey bees are legally defined as a pestilence, and are illegal to possess
here in Maine. Are the bees that folks are working with having 4.9 mm
cells in the Tuscon area really AHB? If so, does their Africanization make
them inherently less susceptible to varroa, regardless of what sized cells
they happen to inhabit? Are AHB not the horrible monsters the media (and
our laws in Maine) would make them? Clearly people in Africa and
elsewhere successfully handle African honeybees and AHB. Clearly the
public perception (and that of many beekeepers) of European honeybees
seems vastly to overemphasize the ferocity of the rather peaceable European
creatures. Could someone definitively describe the bees in question being
kept on small cells near Tucson with some useful diminution of the ravages
of varroa, and if they are AHB tell us what they are actually like to
handle.
Bill Morong
=========================================================================
Date: Sat, 2 Sep 2000 22:21:24 EDT
Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology
Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology
From: "David L. Green"
Subject: Mosquito spray notes
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
So far as I and other beekeepers who are monitoring, have been able to
determine, all applications along the East Coast this year are being done at
night, which means they comply with label directions of the commonly used
adulticides. I have not heard of, nor do I expect to hear, of damage to bees,
as long as this practice continues. Beekeepers need to be in contact with
these public officials, and they need to know that we are aware what the
label says.
A letter from Dr. Nick Calderone (Cornell) advises beekeepers to pen up
bees for the day following applications.
http://www.westchestergov.com/health/WNVbeekeeperLetter.htm
In my experience this is overdoing it, as the stresses of confining bees
can also do a lot of damage. At any rate, it commits the beekeeper to
staying near his bees to cool and water them periodically - not always
possible for those who have a job, or for those who have bees at multiple
sites. I hope Nick is also emphasizing to the public officials that it is
label violations of the type we saw last year that do the real damage.
Butterflies have no legal protection that I know of, though damage is done
to them (as well, along with many other organisms, so the long term effect of
these massive spray programs will have many repercussions). Many of us know
what it's like to see bee kills. Here is one community's experience with a
butterfly kill:
http://www.mankatofreepress.com/archives/2000/000826/story1.html
I am not against pesticides. I use them myself. But I am uneasy with the
increasingly widespread (government run) applications, which leave no islands
of safety for many beneficial (even vital) organisms. When a field or orchard
is treated, the surrounding untreated areas form a "safety net" where the
good guys can reproduce and repopulate. When tens of thousands of acres are
treated the area becomes increasing barren of the beneficials, and
increasingly subject to population explosions of pests. In case no one
understands what I am saying, here's the idea in a nutshell: "pesticide
treadmill."
Congrats on your article in Bee Culture, John Mitchell, (and Kim, too)
where you dealt courageously with the real issues here. After the post Fran
spraying two years ago, American Bee Culture ran a whitewash, ignoring the
real issue, which was that the applications were in clear violation of the
label directions.
I'd like to see a followup, John, where you explore the trail of money
that is involved in these massive projects. Someone is making a huge profit
with these. Which public official is playing golf (or footsie) with which
pesticide salesman? I'm not making any specific accusations here, because I
have no specific information. The biggest clue so far is that the big guys
routinely get away with violations, while little guys get enforcement
actions.
Here in South Carolina, the events I documented last year were admitted
to be in violation by the pesticide police, but no enforcement action was
taken. We ought to be really skeptical and wise here, with so much at stake.
Dave Green SC USA
The Pollination Home Page: http://pollinator.com
Mosquto spray violations after Hurricane Floyd:
http://memebers.aol.com/gardenbees/
=========================================================================
Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2000 21:54:40 +1200
Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology
Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology
From: Ron Law
Subject: Royal Commission of Inquiry on GE
Comments: To: NBA List , NZ Bkprs
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
The NNFA is preparing submissions to the RC that will include comment on
the effects that GE might have on bee products.
If anyone wants to have input into developing that part of our
submission can you please get in touch -- if several of us could work
via email we should get a more robust submission. Overseas input would
be welcome.
I note that Poverty Bay Beekeepers Branch (the only beekeeping
organisation) and Comvita (the only bee product company) are the only
bee related one's granted interested person status at the RC. This does
not mean that others can't make submissions -- you can.
You might like to let us know what your concerns are (as if I don't
already know -- you are totally supportive so that you can genetically
engineer [and patent and therefore make heaps of lucre] bees that seek
out and harvest 500 kg of UMF 20+ honey per hive, are disease (including
varroa) free, and rob the competitors hives. The bees will also collect
100 kg of AAA grade propolis and 100 kg of natural bee pollen in
granular form.)
Oh yeh, I nearly forgot. They also produce heaps of high octane bee
venom through stingless apertures and insert royal jelly directly into
self sealing capsules.
Cheers
Ron Law
=========================================================================
Date: Sat, 2 Sep 2000 20:31:16 -0800
Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology
Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology
From: Paul Cherubini
Subject: Re: Mosquito spray notes
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Dave Green wrote:
> Butterflies have no legal protection that I know of, though damage
> is done to them (as well, along with many other organisms, so the
> long term effect of these massive spray programs will have many
> repercussions). Many of us know what it's like to see bee kills.
> Here is one [southern Minnesota] community's experience with a
> [monarch]butterfly kill:
> http://www.mankatofreepress.com/archives/2000/000826/story1.html
Actually, Dave, it is a banner year for monarch butterflies in southern
Minnesota, Iowa and South Dakota. Below is how Thea Miller Ryan
of Sioux Falls, South Dakota described the situation on Aug 31 to
a monarch butterfly discussion list:
> We are having an incredible year for tagging. We are getting hundreds, yes,
> hundreds of phone calls from people, telling us about their yards full
> of monarchs. I think this is the heaviest concentration of monarchs we
> have seen in the 4 years we have been tagging.
>The calls are coming from southeastern Minnesota, including Luvurne, Hills,
>and Blue Mound. Iowa calls are from Inwood area. South Dakota calls are
>fromSioux Falls (both urban and rural areas), Dell Rapids, Rowena, Lyons,
>Renner, Beresford, Canton, Brandon, Lake Vermillion, Colton, Lennox, Tea,
>Parker, Humboldt, Hartford, Aberdeen, Alcester, Harrisburg, and Spencer.
When outbreaks of monarchs occur like this, monarchs literally
fill the trees that line the streets of small farm towns like Gaylord, MN
(where the mosquito fogging related butterfly kill occurred) at the end
of Aug and first week of Sept. Possibly the reason some monarchs
got killed is that the mosquito spray trucks driving through the city streets
at night unknowingly blew the permethrin fogging material at close range
into some monarch clusters that were formed in trees along the streets.
A loss of a few thousand monarchs from the spray incident is trivial
in relation to the many millions of monarchs in Minnesota this year.
Ironically, the outbreak of monarch butterflies that is occuring in
the upper midwest this year also coincides with the area of the USA
where a high percentage of genetically modified corn and soybeans
are grown.
For example, Gaylord, MN is located in Sibley County, MN.
Sibley County is 589 square miles in size = 376,960 acres.
Of that 376,960 acres, 132,800 acres (35.2%) is planted in corn and
132,000 acres (35.0%) is planted in soybeans. About 30% of this corn
crop is Bt corn and about 55% of this soybean crop is genetically
modified (herbicide tolerant) soybeans.
As everyone knows, the environmental groups have the world
believeing monarch butterflies are gravely endangered by Bt corn
and Roundup Ready soybeans. How ironic that a major outbreak
of monarchs is occuring this year in an area of the country where the
greatest concentration of genetically modified corn and soybeans
is grown.
Paul Cherubini
=========================================================================
Date: Sat, 2 Sep 2000 13:08:04 -0600
Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology
Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology
From: darn@FREENET.EDMONTON.AB.CA
Subject: Re: African bee/cell size 4.9
In-Reply-To: <200009021626.MAA04305@listserv.albany.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
On Sat, 2 Sep 2000, Peter Borst wrote:
> Eva Crane in her excellent book "Bees and Beekeeping" (1990), makes
> the following points:
>
> "Where colonies of both Africanized and European bees are present,
> drones of the former drift into colonies of the latter, whereas
> European drones rarely drift into Africanized colonies (Rinderer,
> 1985). ... In a 'mixed' area many more Africanized than European
> drones are therefore present (in 'mixed' apiaries, 91% were
> Africanized -- Rinderer, 1987)."
Is it possible that one of the reasons that Africanised honey bees
tend to replace European honeybees is that we give no drone comb to
our bees, resulting in an artificial scarcity of European drones?
This would favor propagation by feral AHB colonies which produce a
normal percentage of drones.
Best regards,
Donald Aitken
Edmonton Alberta Canada
=========================================================================
Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2000 08:56:51 EDT
Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology
Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology
From: "David L. Green"
Subject: Re: African bee/cell size 4.9
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In a message dated 9/3/00 8:29:34 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
darn@FREENET.EDMONTON.AB.CA writes:
<< Is it possible that one of the reasons that Africanised honey bees
tend to replace European honeybees is that we give no drone comb to
our bees, resulting in an artificial scarcity of European drones? >>
Speak for yourself, Don. I've noted in the past that bees without drone
comb in the spring will tear out worker comb to build drone comb. I've
always used and always advocated putting drone comb on the sides of the brood
area. I tell young beekeepers that the bees need drones for colony morale.
Dave Green
The Pollination Home Page: http://pollinator.com
=========================================================================
Date: Sat, 2 Sep 2000 11:07:11 -0400
Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology
Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology
From: Pyramid
Subject: Re: worker bee & sizecell size
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In my TBH's, the worker bee cell size is 5.3 mm. Both were begun with
sounthern queens and bees from my standard hives.
I have had bee trees (feral hives) close to my house and under
observation for over 8 years. Not one such hive has ever survived the
winter. Unless I am able to seal off the dead hive in a bee tree, it is
the first place to be taken over by a Spring swarm some of which (but
not all) come from my own hives.
Burns
=========================================================================
Date: Sat, 2 Sep 2000 18:01:44 EDT
Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology
Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology
From: Robert Brenchley
Subject: (no subject)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Allen Dick writes:
< Others worldwide are finding that in a few generations they can reduce the
varroa
This is hopeful news; where can I learn more? If this is true, then
either the bees are developing a degree of resistance, or the most virulent
strains of varroa are disappearing, or both. At a guess, I would imagine the
first is most likely to be true, because we know that bees are genetically
very variable, while a lot of arthropods and similar organisms are not, if
what I have heard is true. Sorry, I don't have a source for that.
Is there more information on the cell size used by different races
available anywhere? I currently have Italian/British black hybrids; I may
change to British black. I believe the old black bees used in the States were
similar to the German heath bee; is it true that these were inferior to the
British type?
This is really interesting, only I have a problem. I am unable to see
eggs, small larvae or varroa with my glasses on, and I cannot see anything
properly through a veil without them. My bees are rather dodgy-tempered, so I
don't want to go without the veil. Does anyone have any answer to this?
Regards,
Robert Brenchley
RSBrenchley@aol.com
=========================================================================
Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2000 10:56:36 -0400
Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology
Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology
From: Peter Borst
Subject: Posting to the Bee List
Comments: To: Mike Allsopp ,
Allen Dick
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
Open letter to Mike Allsopp and Allen Dick,
I want to thank and compliment you for your clear and
informative contributions to the hotly debated discussion of smaller
cell foundation. I only hope people will read them carefully and use
their heads before they throw a lot more money at this problem.
pb
=========================================================================
Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2000 11:34:58 EDT
Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology
Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology
From: HarrisonRW@AOL.COM
Subject: Buckwheat Honey
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Does anyone on the list know of a source for 60 lb. pails of buckwheat honey
in the New York, CT or MA area? My usual source is no longer carrying
buckwheat honey.
Please reply my e-mail address.
Thank you.
Ralph Harrison
Milford, CT
harrisonrw@aol.com
=========================================================================
Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2000 14:38:51 -0400
Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology
Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology
From: Allen Dick
Subject: Re: (no subject)
<< Others worldwide are finding that in a few generations they can reduce
<< the varroa populations by 50% simply by selection from their existing
<< stocks.
> This is hopeful news; where can I learn more?
The August 2000 issue of ABJ has several articles relating a number of
reports on thid from Canada, Germany, and the USA.
allen
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2000 06:17:19 -0400
Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology
Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology
From: Stan Sandler
Subject: EFB sterilization
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
I have been searching the list archives regarding EFB.
I have found posts stating that the bacteria is NOT spore forming. However,
I have a considerable number of fairly new frames with permadent foundation
that contain scale. There has been a lot of list traffic in the past
regarding sterilization of plastic foundation with AFB scale. But almost
nothing has been written about EFB scale.
>From an old post by Joe Hemmens:
>Many years ago EB Wedmore gave the following:
>
> Destruction of disease germs,
>
> AFB 12 minutes in water at 100C
> EFB 10 minutes in water at 65C
>
> He wrote this in 1932.
Sid Pullinger wrote (also several years ago):
> I have an old
> freezer I use as a fumigation chest, using acetic acid to fumigate against
> EFB and nosema.
Now, my question is what would be the best methods of treating these frames
(radiation and ethylene dioxide and not options here) in view of the
information above. Sid, is your acetic acid fumigation for frame treatment
when scale is present, or just for prevention?
I have found that scraping the frames back to the permadent and then
pressure washing does NOT take off the scale. Perhaps soaking them first in
something would help.
If melissococcus pluton is not spore forming, then how long does the scale
remain infective?
Regards,
Stan
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2000 08:28:45 -0400
Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology
Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology
From: Bill Truesdell
Subject: Re: African bee/cell size 4.9
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
AHB are in the smaller cell size, but AHB have Varroa.
Grooming/hygienic behavior seems to be the AHB method of Varroa control.
And, I believe it also is one of Apis Cerana methods of control. It is also
the predominant method found when EHB colonies are located or selected for
that are Varroa tolerant. There are other factors that come into play, but
they usually are with different strains of Varroa. From what I have read,
the method common to all races of bees exhibiting varroa control is
grooming/hygienic behavior. That is mainly leg biting but also opening
cells to dispose of pupa with varroa.
This all seem to lead back to Allen's comments about which bee are we
looking at. If it is AHB, then foundation size probably has nothing to do
with Varroa control. If it is not AHB, then is grooming present? If so, it
is probably not cell size but what is common to varroa control in all bees.
But if grooming is not present, then it might be cell size, but it could
also be a host of other variables.
Bill Truesdell
Bath, ME
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2000 08:32:48 -0400
Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology
Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology
From: Bob Cannaday
Subject: Apicure
Recently I applied apicure to one of my hives to test the immediate results
prior to applying it to all my hives. I noticed a lot of the bees exit the
hive 10 minutes after the aplication this was to be expected as the
instruction explained that the bees might exit the hive. After an hour or
two I notice the bees were continueing to exit and gather at the front.
That evening I went back to check the hive and notice a more than normal
amount of bees at this hive and what was even more worrying was that it
appears that A Lot of wax particles was at the front of the hive and all
over the ground... along with dead bees. It was late so I waited until
this morning to open the hive and found many dead bees and it appears that
several frames with wax\foundation was chewed up.
Was this a result of ROBBING as the bees exited the hive and other bees
getting in or a strange reaction to Apicure. I had the front open all the
way to allow the fumes to move through the hive or something going on with
the Apicure causing the bees to tear the hive up or Robbing?
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2000 15:32:41 +0200
Reply-To: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Fran=E7ois_Servel?=
Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology
From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Fran=E7ois_Servel?=
Subject: imidacloprid
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Hello,
If you visit the website
http://www.nobugs.com/Home_Sub/Home_Sub_NoTermites/PremiseBen/Product.htm
(bayer USA), you will be informed about the effects of the Premise that a
chemical used to kill Termites. The active ingredient of this product is
imidacloprid, the same used in Gaucho. This page describes the different
effects on the termites :
a.. Premise kills termites, draining the colony's strength. Other
termiticides only create barriers that repel termites, so they live to
attack another day.
b.. Premise has no odor and takes less chemical active ingredient to do the
job - up to 20 times less! So, Premise poses a low risk to your family, your
pets, your home, and the environment around you.
c.. Premise causes a range of effects in termites: they stop feeding and are
unable to maintain their colony. A second effect, exclusive to Premise, is
called Premise Plus Nature™. This phenomenon makes termites susceptible to
infection by naturally occurring organisms. Either way, the termites die,
and your home is protected!
d.. Thanks to an exclusive process called Lateral Soil Movement™ (LSM),
Premise spreads in all directions helping ensure thorough soil coverage so
termites die when they attempt to get through.
e.. Premise distributes throughout the soil creating a thorough Treated
Zone™. When termites encounter the Premise Treated Zone, they immediately
stop feeding, and your house is protected.
At the same time of the use of Gaucho, we have observed, here in Europe,
symptoms like very poor harvest of honey, or collapse of colonies after
foraging sunflowers whose seeds had been treated with Gaucho. Don't think
it is troubling ?
François
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2000 22:11:52 +0100
Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology
Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology
From: pdillon
Subject: Re: imidacloprid
Comments: To: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Fran=E7ois?= Servel
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Bonjour,
Regarding the mail posted by François Servel and Imidacloprid which
touched upon the dreadful problems that French and other beekeepers are
having still to suffer. Please refer to the items posted previously
-Sunflowers and Gaucho in the archives. It details the losses which are
still continuing- spring and summer!
The product has now been banned in several countries( provisionally in
France)- but appears to still be causing problems due to reported
persistence in soils, with carry over into other crops such as
sunflower- even though the seed has not been treated.
It is a complicated story, not yet concluded.
Peter
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2000 21:31:37 +0100
Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology
Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology
From: pdillon
Subject: Re: EFB sterilization
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Stan,
Regarding E.F.B., it is my understanding that "scales" that stick to the
wax are not produced.
The larvae die from being starvation.
If the larvae are removed then the infection is removed.
The continuation of the infection is due to not all infected individuals
dying- the infection is then passed on via the faecal material left in
the cell, which is cleaned by the house bees, allowing for contamination
of further individuals as they are fed.
If they die, it is before the cell is capped.
Regards
Peter
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2000 15:35:21 -0400
Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology
Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology
From: "john f. mesinger"
Subject: Re: African bee/cell size 4.9
In-Reply-To: <200009041414.KAA11219@listserv.albany.edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Grooming as a major factor seems reasonable to me. In caring for an
observation hive in our nature center, I have on occasion observed a new
worker emerging from her cell. In each case two workers seemed to grab her
and rotated her while seeming to be biting her [the way I have seen dogs go
after ticks]. What I initially thought was an attack seems to have been an
extremely thorough grooming. There have been no signs of mites in the hive,
so the grooming may just have been a response built into the DNA of this
particular group of Italian honeybees.
John F. Mesinger
jfm6f@unix.mail.virginia.edu
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2000 11:10:01 -0500
Reply-To: busybeeacres@discoverynet.com
Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology
From: bob harrison
Subject: Re: African bee/cell size 4.9
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Bill Truesdell wrote,
>
> This all seem to lead back to Allen's comments about which bee are we
> looking at. If it is AHB, then foundation size probably has nothing to do
> with Varroa control.
Researchers look for complex answers first. Beekeepers look for simple
answers first. In the simple you look for the obvious differences and
say are they the cause of the observations you are seeing. Many of my
posts are never posted so its hard to present a case with posts missing
and i never know which posts are not going on line. People i email
direct get a better picture of my theorys. Back to Allens comments:
The obvious differences when looking at AHB and our European bees are
in MY OPINION the fact Ahb makes the 4.9mm foundation and normally nests
are not of the numbers our commercial hives keep with the amount of
forced spring brood rearing we cause by spring feeding. Most researchers
agree varroa is most destructive in hives raising large amounts of
brood. Last spring i had hives i fed 4 gallons of syrup to raising brood
for me. In experiments i have tried feeding untreated hives and had to
destroy them in two months as even chemicals wouldn't have saved those
with the high varroa infestations. I have found there is a level of
infestation where treatment is a waste of time and money. My statement
is backed up by the research of Marion Ellis (researcher from Nebraska)
and teacher of the Nebraska master beekeeping course.I expect to test
the 4.9mm foundation with hives rearing huge amounts of brood and not
hives not being fed and on minor flows.
> But if grooming is not present, then it might be cell size, but it could
> also be a host of other variables.
My friend H.Bell and i both set up observation hives with varroa and
observed the bees. I suggest all beekeepers interested in varroa do the
same. I have done many such observation colonies and believe all though
grooming takes place it will never be the total answer. My opinion but
also my observation. Of the three choices you give i think you are
looking deeply at the problem.
1.grooming
2.cell size
3.host of other variables
I enjoyed the post and think you understand this complex unprovable
problem at this time. Maybe before long we will be able to cross a
couple of the above off the list. Maybe not and the debate will rage on!
Sincerely,
Bob Harrison
>
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2000 22:48:18 +0200
Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology
Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology
From: crpost
Subject: Re: Beesize(was: Man created varroa problem)
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
James Kilty wrote: ...
> Beowulf Cooper found that A.m.m. bees were *larger* when left to build
> their own comb. This would presumably also vary depending on locality as
> he and others have found great variation in other characters such as the
> peak time for bee populations which related to the principal forage of
> the areas. I have also had a report of a locality in Scotland where the
> bees were a great deal smaller than any others the beekeepers had seen. ...
One factor not seen in the discussion is the age of the comb. Older comb,
containing many pupal and larval debris, will effectively reduce the inside
dimensions on the cells and, as a result, the size of the bee. The age of those
feral colonies that survive might be a factor. Younger established feral
colonies' cell size might not be small enough yet for them to resist. That is,
assuming cells size is a factor in varroa tolerance.
In addition to this, perhaps the fact that older cells become rounder inside
(due to the same factor), in stead of hexagonal as per newly built comb, leaves
less space for the developing Varroa - in the corners as it were?
Thirdly, perhaps there is a biochemical (pheromonal?) reason for their survival
based on the larval and pupal skins.
Makes me wonder if replacing two sheets of foundation on a yearly basis is a
misteek.
Robert Post
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2000 17:02:22 -0400
Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology
Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology
From: Stan Sandler
Subject: Re: EFB sterilization
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Hi Peter:
>Regarding E.F.B., it is my understanding that "scales" that stick to the
>wax are not produced.
>
>The larvae die from being starvation.
I don't know if scale is the proper word. The larvae are twisted and show
striations. The bees can remove them when they are still soft but I have a
lot of hives with very poor hygienic behaviour. The EFB is often present in
addition to chalkbrood and once the hive gets weak enough they cannot clean
out all the dead larvae. They dry down to a hard "scale?" that is twisted
and still shows the striations. It is different than AFB scale in that it
is along the midrib (the foundation wall) instead of on the lower cell wall,
but it is still a dried diseased larvae on the bottom of the cell and the
bees are not cleaning them out and they are stuck quite firmly once they dry up.
Regards,
Stan
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2000 23:29:45 EDT
Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology
Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology
From: John Mitchell
Subject: Re: Mosquito spray notes
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In a message dated 9/2/00 9:21:24 PM, Pollinator writes:
<< I'd like to see a followup, John, >>
Thank you. Letters or posts to the magazine or to a writer let him and the
editor know where more coverage is needed. Also, your letters in the "Letters
to the Editor" column can provide a vital corrective when something get's
omitted or you feel there is something that needs to be corrected or
amplified. Sometimes in trying to show the big sweep within space limitations
and on deadline, important tangents and significant facts get brief
treatment. Or maybe another way of looking at the problem makes more sense to
you. In the end, the point is to put the best information out there, so write
if you feel the need.
In regards to your point about beneficials and the "pesticide treadmill,"
here's a graph I cut before submitting the pest abatement story:
"There was other evidence of pesticide damage. Over at Great Kills beach a
week later (after Sept. 3), a Staten Island naturalist, Paul Lederer, was
counting dragonflies. He tallied 30 on September 11. The next day, 17 hours
after helicopters sprayed the area with malathion, he counted only one.
Ironically, dragonflies are voracious predators of mosquitoes."
If the pesticides that knock back the mosquitoes are killing the
beneficials that prey on them (and sometimes on bees too), more spraying will
be needed next year and the year after that and so on... I agree that
pesticides are necessary and use them myself (Apistan), but even when
properly used to the best of our current knowledge, they can create other
problems.
Interestingly, according to several people I've spoken with (scientist and
park ranger) programs to control invasive plants like purple loosestrife have
experienced setbacks when areas where beneficial insects have been introduced
were sprayed with pesticides. Controlling invasives cost an estimated $138
billion a year between the damage they cause and the controls used to curb
them, accroding to a study published last year by David Pimentel, a Cornell
University ecologist.
If we spend a million dollars carpet bombing the swamps and the woods and
the riparian areas with pesticides to control the mosquitoes, are we wasting
a billion dollars spent on beneficial insects?
John A. Mitchell
Contributing Editor
Bee Culture magazine
Any opinions expressed in this post are strictly my own, and do not
necessarily represent those of Bee Culture magazine or its publisher.
=========================================================================
Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2000 22:38:12 -0400
Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology
Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology
From: "W. Allen Dick"
Subject: Free Bee Classifieds
I haven't mentioned the free beekeeping classifieds lately. In fact, I
haven't even visited them myself for a while.
I dropped in today and noticed that there are getting to be quite a few
interesting ads, including a pointer to a Danish dealer's site where
plastic hives are shown, and a commercial operation in Canada for sale.
Any tasteful ad for bee supplies or bee operations, beekeeping jobs, etc.
is welcome. Why not drop by?
The site is at http://www.internode.net/HoneyBee/BeeAds/
allen
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2000 01:19:20 -0400
Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology
Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology
From: Bob Harrison
Subject: cell size debate
Hello all,
After reviewing the cell size posts I have to say those on both sides of
issue are standing firm in their opinions. Many valid questions have been
raised. As Barry said research needs to be done. I agree enough of a
interest has been shown. Proven to me by Dadants going to make the 4.9mm
foundation so we can all see for ourselves.
Allen Dick says i didn't prove my case. I don't think i did to Allen but I
respect his views and say "we can agree to disagree". I also say to Allen he
didn't prove his case to me. Enough said!
Researchers need to look at several issues raised and find the answers.
1. Why Dee Lusbys 500+ hives are alive and producing honey without
treatments.
comment: Allen will say from the selective breeding. I say there is not one
shred of proof that the varroa tolerant trait is able to be bred for!
I agree U.S.D.A. lab has bees alive without treatments or so they say. I
agree Dee has many more hives alive or so she says. I say both have not got
proof as to why their hives are existing without treatments ONLY THEORYS.
2. Why varroa seems to not be a big problem to AHB on 4.9mm foundation
comment: Most researchers agree this is the case and wonder themselves.
3. Why varroa doesn't reproduce in A.cerana 4.7mm worker cells.
comment: Again a mystery. Cell size or missing trigger. I wish i knew!
After all these years looking at the issue its easy for me to see that none
of the theorys as to why varroa jumped AND WHEN from A. cerana to A.melifera
will ever be proven . Not mine or not Allens. Both have merits and will be
discussed at beekeeping meetings long after we are gone.
In my opinion from rereading the Lusby article in January 1998 Bee Culture
that her bees are not africanised. Kim Flottum editer says many were worked
without veils.page 28
Lester Hines the beekeeper working with the Tucson Bee lab says in his
article in the same issue (page 33 ) that his bees are African.
I believe the true test of Dees bees and the Tucson Labs bees will be by
raising the population levels. A fact of varroa and verified by my own
personal experiance is that strong hives are the hives most ravaged by
varroa. As a teenager we raced cars. At idle all the motors held up. Crank
up the revolutions and many came apart. I hope the 4.9mm theory doesn't come
apart when populations and brood rearing is cranked up as is the case in the
Midwest. Once established in my test apiary i am going to set up two queen
units on 4.9mm foundation. ALL SUCH TESTS OF NOT TREATING THOSE HAVE ENDED
UP WITH DEAD COLONIES BY THE END OF THE SEASON. Is the reason European bees
are ravaged by varroa and not the African bees SIMPLY because most AHB
colonies never raise brood like the European hives do. Dr. Orley Taylor from
Kansas and i have discussed the issue and the years he researched AHB in
Mexico he NEVER let or had AHB raising the amount of brood our bees produce.
Maybe our friends working AHB can add their knowledge.Is the reason AHB
handles varroa better because they normally have smaller colonies instead
of the 4.9mm foundation? Does varroa ravage the AHB colonies raising the
most brood the most? I have no way of knowing! Help bee-L!
I have said i don't believe in breeding as the total answer. I wait to test
this super strain of varroa tolerant bees the USDA is breeding. I want to
bring those bees above a "idle"and see if they hold up. To me if they can't
produce honey and polinate they belong in bee ICU. Only my opinion but the
other side has to prove to me their bees are indeed varroa tolerant. Write
all the papers you want but so far i haven't seen a strain of bees able to
live and produce honey as well as those hives treated with chemicals.
Will somebody please correct the data printed in ABC_XYZ of beekeeping and
other places. Quote page 643
Varroasis.-This affliction of honeybees is caused by the mite Varroa
Jacobsoni which was FIRST reported by Jacobson in Java in 1904 as a parasite
on Indian bees.A Indica Fabr.
comment: How can anyone say this parasite has been a parasite of bees for
milions of years! I demand proof Allen and others!
Quote page 643-The present distribution has extended to Russia where it was
first noticed in 1964,and on to other european countries in 1967.
Could somebody enlighten me as to why importers of the Russian queens are
saying the strain of Russian bees has survived varroa for eons! Maybe a
bee-l reader could put a name on the rsearcher which first documented varroa
on bees in Russia. According to this book and others Varroa was first
noticed in Russia only three years before Europe.
I feel i ask a valid question and want a name and date
.
In closing i believe the Russian bees need to be evaluated as to why they
are showing varroa tolerance which i agree they do and remain to be shown
that their offspring are as tolerant . I also wonder why Aaron declined to
report on his experiance with the Russian queens.Aaron i am still waiting!
Did you get your monies worth? Also after rereading all the posts i see only
Allen quoting a couple articles in Aug. ABJ for proof of his ideas and
Theorys. Allen i say those articles prove my opinions and theorys!
I imagine this post will be deleted as many of mine are but to the
moderators i say:
only weak minds follow without question!
The debate has been fun and hope we can all agree to disagree as finding two
beekeepers to agree on what they are looking at in a hive is very hard!
Sincerely,
Bob Harrison
Thanks Dadant and sure you won't regret your decision!
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2000 01:03:37 +0100
Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology
Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology
From: pdillon
Subject: Re: EFB sterilization
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Stan,
The description is like E.F.B.
The larvae could be described as looking like they have an acute attack
of the stomach ache!- changing colour from the usual pearly sheen to
creamy, slight pale yellow/green tinge, contorting into unnatural
positions.
Also if they are A.F.B. scales then under a U.V. SOURCE they apparently
glow.
Scales, haven't seen any scales before, maybe it is to do with the
plastic comb+lousy cleaners.
If that's the case, change the strain of bee to a "hygienic" type(
should help clear the problem with chalk brood - little problem over
here, genetic base of our queens in general still shows traits of
resistance to this problem)
Plastic comb- that I have had no experience at all - still using the old
wax foundation. It seems to me that if wax is used, then disease may be
limited by regular changes of wax - I am supposing that one is less
likely to throw plastic frames away.
Regarding the scales, I presume (dangerous I know!) that they are not a
source of contamination once the medium they depend upon for their
nutrition(living bee larval tissue) has been removed.
What are the group's thoughts on this?
Regards
Peter
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2000 23:33:31 EDT
Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology
Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology
From: John Mitchell
Subject: Looking for beekeepers
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Does anybody know how to contact Kevin and Shawna Roberts, two commercial
beekeepers located in Hollister, CA, who were contributing excellent posts to
bee-l in 1996? They were members of the Delta Bee Club. They're email address
is no longer valid.
Thank you,
John Mitchell
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2000 11:29:48 -0400
Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology
Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology
From: Adony Melathopoulos
Subject: Re: EFB sterilization
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Dear Stan,
There has not been many studies that investigate the susceptibility of EFB to gamma irradiation:
Pankiw, P. L. Bailey, T. A. Gochnauer abd H. A. Hamilton. 1970. Disinfection of honeybee combs by gamma irradiation. II. European foulbrood disease. J. Apic. Res 9: 165--168.
Hornitzky, M.A.Z. 1982. Use of gamma irradiation from cobalt 60 in the control of Streptococcus pluton in honey. J. Apic. Res. 21: 126--127.
Unfortunately, the Pankiw paper is missing from our library, but a summary of the paper states that the study irradiated infected comb with 8kGy of gamma irradiation, and following treatement there were 'sufficient viable organisms... to cause EFB when these combs are placed in healthy colonies.' The Hornitzky paper that small samples of honey (100ml) could be sterilized when subjected to a dose of 14kGy.
We are running a study looking at the penetration of high velocity electron irradiation through different types of comb (ie with honey, without honey, with crystalized honey) to see how many combs can be sterilized at once. There is so little EFB out here that we have not set any treatments up, however I was unaware that so little data exists for EFB that maybe we will include it on future runs.
>From an old post by Joe Hemmens:
>Many years ago EB Wedmore gave the following:
>
> Destruction of disease germs,
>
> AFB 12 minutes in water at 100C
> EFB 10 minutes in water at 65C
>
> He wrote this in 1932.
Since 1932 there has been some work on looking to decontaminate comb without irradiation or fumigation with ethylene oxide. The work I am familiar with is from NZ, where they investigated various methods of sterilization of more bulky colony wooden ware, such as supers, lids and bottom boards. All the work is with AFB. Dipping equipment in hot paraffin wax has been shown to provide excellent decontamination of hive equipment when immersed for 10min at 160C (Goodwin and Haine 1998a). It does not work at lower temperatures or shorter periods of time. Spores have also been shown to be killed IN THE LAB using the antiseptics sodium hypochorite or Virkon® (Goodwin and Haine 1998a) and adequate decontamination of hive boxes was achieved in the field following treatment with 1% Virkon® (Hansen and Brødsgaard 1999). Other antiseptics, such as Savlon®, Dettol®, ethanol and methylated spirits are ineffective at killing spores (Goodwin and Haine 1998).
Goodwin, R. M. and H. M. Haine. 1998a. Sterilizing beekeeping equipment infected with American foulbrood disease spores. New Zealand Beekeeper. 5: 13.
Goodwin, R. M. and H. M. Haine. 1998b. Using paraffin wax and steam chests to sterilize hive parts that have been in contact with American foulbrood disease. New Zealand Beekeeper. 5: 21.
Given that dipping in 100C paraffin at 10min did not sterilize AFB, I doubt that boiling for 12min would be effective. As for EFB, I am not sure. If you want to try it, why not set up a small controlled experiment.
Sid Pullinger wrote (also several years ago):
> I have an old
> freezer I use as a fumigation chest, using acetic acid to fumigate against
> EFB and nosema.
Now, my question is what would be the best methods of treating these frames
(radiation and ethylene dioxide and not options here) in view of the
information above. Sid, is your acetic acid fumigation for frame treatment
when scale is present, or just for prevention?
<
Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology
From: Aaron Morris
Subject: Re: Research Specialist position
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
This message was originally submitted by ecapaldi@BUCKNELL.EDU to the
BEE-L
list at LISTSERV.ALBANY.EDU. It was edited to remove HTML formatting.
> ------------ Original message (ID=3812B134) (98 lines) --------------
> Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2000 15:28:39 -0400
> To: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu
> From: Elizabeth Capaldi
> Subject: Research Specialist position
>
> Research Specialist in Life Sciences
> Department of Entomology
> University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
>
> A regular, full-time position as Research Specialist in Life Sciences
> is available in the Department of Entomology at the University of
> Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. The successful candidate will
> participate in an established research program studying the
> physiology and genetics of honey bee social behavior. Duties will
> include: maintaining colonies of honey bees; repairing beekeeping
> equipment; constructing specialized research equipment out of wood
> and metal; assisting in planning and setting up experiments;
> assisting in the collection of behavioral, physiological, and genetic
> data in the field and laboratory; and assisting undergraduate and
> graduate students in research projects. Applicants should have a
> bachelor's degree (preferably in biology or one of the life
> sciences), prior experience in the care and rearing of insects
> (preferably honey bees), and skills in carpentry, metal-working, and
> electronics. Experience in field and/or laboratory research is
> desirable. Salary will be commensurate with training and experience
> (minimum of $28,000 per year). Please send a resume, three letters
> of recommendation, and a letter detailing your experience with honey
> bees and explaining why you are interested in this position to: Dr.
> Gene E. Robinson, Department of Entomology, University of Illinois,
> 320 Morrill Hall, 505 S. Goodwin Ave., Urbana, IL 61801, (217)
> 265-0309, fax (217) 244-3499, or e-mail generobi@life.uiuc.edu. For
> full consideration, applications should be received by October 1,
> 2000. Interviews may take place prior to the application deadline;
> however, no final decision will be made until after that date.
>
> The University of Illinois is an Affirmative Action/Equal
> Opportunity Employer
>
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2000 13:20:58 -0400
Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology
Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology
From: "W. Allen Dick"
Subject: Re: cell size debate
> Allen Dick says i didn't prove my case. I don't think i did to Allen but I
> respect his views and say "we can agree to disagree". I also say to Allen
> he didn't prove his case to me. Enough said!
I'd like to clarify my position here. I don't have a case to prove.
My only interest in this matter is that of a moderator. A moderator's job
is to try to ensure balance and, well, moderation.
Therefore I have made several posts warning members to do their own
research and not to accept uncritically any of the claims being made. I am
very concerned about the effect that the posting of opinions and fantasies
as if they were facts is having on BEE-L's credibility.
I have carefully examined all evidence put before us and concluded that it
is flawed and insufficient to support the conclusions being made by some
memebers.
In trying to substantiate their claims, my own investigations led to data
which is in direct conflict with the claims of the proponents of this
theory. I was also unable to reach the conclusions they reached from
reading the historical documents that they claim supports their case.
I have felt obligated to point this out to the list.
I don't have to prove anything, since I am not proposing any new
hypothesis.
The burden of proof is on those who are making the claims.
So far they have failed to prove anything.
allen
----
FWIW: My personal cell size survey and the results are at
http://www.internode.net/honeybee/Misc/CellCount.htm and
http://www.internode.net/honeybee/Misc/CellCountResults.htm
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2000 13:27:16 -0500
Reply-To: boby@lakecountry.net
Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology
From: Bob Young
Subject: africanized bees
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Just heard on a Dallas, Texas radio station that africanized bees were
found in University Park, an affluent small city centrally located within
and totally surrounded by the city of Dallas. There are no open areas,
other than city parks, that I know of, and the city is primarily made up
very exclusive, older high end neighborhoods. At any rate, Dallas County is
now under bee quarantine. I am located 90 miles east and crossing my
fingers. I have varroa somewhat under control but I really don't want to
deal with africanized bees; IMHO this will drive more people from
beekeeping than varroa.
Bob Young
Lindale,TX
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2000 14:59:17 -0400
Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology
Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology
Comments: SoVerNet Verification (on garnet.sover.net) Prabois from
arc2a59.bf.sover.net [209.198.116.188] 209.198.116.188 Tue, 5 Sep
2000 14:57:36 -0400 (EDT)
From: Huguet - Sumner
Subject: one queen cell ?
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Question to anyone. I found one of my hives queen and with no brood, not =
even any drone cells (from laying workers). So I introduced three frames =
of 1-3 day old brood. Now two weeks later I can only find one queen =
cell. I always thought they would produce at least a few queen cells? Is =
this unique?
One more question. I have some Terramycin that is now 3 years old. It =
has been stored in my shed over the past two winters. Does age or cold =
New England winters have any effect on it's life span?
Thanks !
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2000 14:35:16 -0500
Reply-To: busybeeacres@discoverynet.com
Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology
From: bob harrison
Subject: Re: one queen cell ?
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Huguet - Sumner wrote:
>
> Question to anyone. I found one of my hives queen and with no brood, not =
> even any drone cells (from laying workers). So I introduced three frames =
> of 1-3 day old brood. Now two weeks later I can only find one queen =
> cell. I always thought they would produce at least a few queen cells? Is =
> this unique?
No! Maybe the bees only thought the need to draw one queen cell. I have
noticed the last few years that when bees swarm the colony remaining
hasn't allways raised a queen. I allways blammed the situation on the
fact the queen stops laying prior to swarming so thought maybe the bees
thought the larva were to old. I really can't say for sure in your case
but pointing out a couple possibilites.
>
> One more question. I have some Terramycin that is now 3 years old. It =
> has been stored in my shed over the past two winters. Does age or cold =
> New England winters have any effect on it's life span?
I think both could. I wouldn't use Terramycin which is past the expire
date on package. You said winters . I might wonder more about the heats
effect on the package. If worried why take a chance?
Bob Harrison
>
>
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2000 23:46:37 +0100
Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology
Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology
From: James Kilty
Subject: Re: Beesize(was: Man created varroa problem)
In-Reply-To: <200009042233.SAA19617@listserv.albany.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
In message <200009042233.SAA19617@listserv.albany.edu>, crpost
writes
>One factor not seen in the discussion is the age of the comb. Older comb,
>containing many pupal and larval debris, will effectively reduce the inside
>dimensions on the cells and, as a result, the size of the bee.
I came across an article a few years ago which did an experiment and
came up with the conclusion that about 2% reduction is all you get over
the years. That suggests the idea that cells get smaller is a myth.
Presumably bees either ream the cells out or replace them as needed.
Please will people who have measured many cells contribute on this.
> The age of those
>feral colonies that survive might be a factor. Younger established feral
>colonies' cell size might not be small enough yet for them to resist. That is,
>assuming cells size is a factor in varroa tolerance.
Please note my "speculation" of a few postings ago that feral colonies
*if* they are going to reduce cell size should do so extremely quickly
as each new generation draws new comb.
My own measurements show little reduction if any - many feral colonies
show 57mm cells, the same as my foundation. I will continue to measure -
and post the results if there is interest. This includes cut comb (from
strips) wild comb in colonies on frames, wild comb from swarms and *old*
comb from feral colonies cut out from their nest and tied into frames.
--
James Kilty
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2000 18:40:04 EDT
Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology
Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology
From: John Mitchell
Subject: CDC report on pyrethrins and pyrethroids
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
The CDC issued a new report in June this year on 97 cases of pesticide
poisoning in the food service industry involving pyrethrins and pyrethroids
(automated aerial sprays are used to control flying insects). In the
editorial note, the authors claim this is the first study to have discovered
cardiovascular and neurologic symptoms affiliated with exposure to these
pesticides, but it seems only when they are used as an aerial spray, and only
immediately after exposure. Three of the cases involved resmethrin.
Address is as follows:
http://www.cdc.gov/epo/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm4922a3.htm
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2000 18:28:57 -0500
Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology
Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology
From: Dennis Crutchfield
Subject: Re: Wax press
In-Reply-To: <200008190746.DAA13082@listserv.albany.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
: Re: Wax press
on 8/18/00 10:07 PM, Bob Young at boby@lakecountry.net wrote:
> My idea would be to build one similar to a cider press but using some
large
> diameter PVC pipe (8" or more) with some holes drilled in it for the body
I late as usual in checking the mail, You can buy up to 1 1/2 pvc that is
schedule 80 for high pressure that is safe for food, it is used for water
lines. No problem.
preacher
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2000 22:37:12 +0000
Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology
Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology
From: Paul Cherubini
Subject: Re: CDC report on pyrethrins and pyrethroids
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
John Mitchell wrote:
>
> The CDC issued a new report in June this year on 97 cases of pesticide
> poisoning in the food service industry involving pyrethrins and pyrethroids
> (automated aerial sprays are used to control flying insects). In the
> editorial note, the authors claim this is the first study to have discovered
> cardiovascular and neurologic symptoms affiliated with exposure to these
> pesticides, but it seems only when they are used as an aerial spray, and only
> immediately after exposure. Three of the cases involved resmethrin.
> Address is as follows:
> http://www.cdc.gov/epo/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm4922a3.htm
97 cases between 1986 and 1999 = only 7 cases per year. This is out of tens,
probably hundreds of thousands of applications per year (since there are tens
of thousands of automatic pyrethrin aerosol machines installed in restaurants
around the country). No one seriously injured - even workers sprayed directly in
the eye when servicing the machines.
Personally, I think this outstanding safety record should be balanced against
who knows how many hundreds or thousands of cases of food poisoning
that would be caused by letting flies roam free in restaurants.
Paul Cherubini
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2000 00:04:02 +0100
Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology
Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology
From: James Kilty
Subject: Re: one queen cell ?
In-Reply-To: <200009051859.OAA17711@listserv.albany.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
In message <200009051859.OAA17711@listserv.albany.edu>, Huguet - Sumner
writes
>Question to anyone. I found one of my hives queen and with no brood, not =
>even any drone cells (from laying workers). So I introduced three frames =
>of 1-3 day old brood. Now two weeks later I can only find one queen =
>cell. I always thought they would produce at least a few queen cells? Is =
>this unique?
No. I have seen it a few times.
--
James Kilty
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2000 08:49:05 -0400
Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology
Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology
From: "Lipscomb, Al"
Subject: Re: one queen cell ?
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Huguet - Sumner wrote:
>
> Question to anyone. I found one of my hives queen and with no brood, not =
> even any drone cells (from laying workers). So I introduced three frames =
> of 1-3 day old brood. Now two weeks later I can only find one queen =
> cell. I always thought they would produce at least a few queen cells? Is =
> this unique?
I think part of what you are seeing is genetic. We have been breeding bees
to reduce the tendency to swarm and I think that may be a part of the
picture. Other issues are going to be how long the hive was queenless as
that will determine the age and population of house bees, the resources
comming in from the field force, and what the bees thought of the brood you
introduced.
A method that was explained to me (I belive it is a modification of the
Miller technique of queen rearing) is to put a short piece of foundation
into a frame and insert it into the center of a strong hives brood chamber.
Feed the colony. In four or five days the bees will have started to draw the
foundation and the queen shold have egges in some of the partialy drawn
comb. Pull the frame and trim away any wax below the cells with eggs and
larvae. Introduce this frame to your queenless colony. Feed the colony. If
the colony has been queenless for more than a couple of weeks (no capped
brood to be found) then you may want to add a frame of capped brood with
clinging nurse bees. The queenless colony should start a number of cells.
Your results are going to be determined by the drone population in your
area. In the end it is often better to just purchase a new queen and
introduce her using a slow release method.
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2000 09:13:48 EDT
Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology
Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology
From: John Mitchell
Subject: Re: CDC report on pyrethrins and pyrethroids
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In a message dated 9/6/00 12:37:41 AM, cherubini@MINDSPRING.COM writes:
<< Personally, I think this outstanding safety record should be balanced
against
who knows how many hundreds or thousands of cases of food poisoning
that would be caused by letting flies roam free in restaurants.
>>
And if people are worried about pyrethroids in their food, they would do much
better to monitor the use of automated sprayers in local restaurants, hotels,
nursing homes, etc. that squirt pyrethroids every 15 minutes all day long in
the kitchen and dining areas to knock down flying insects â€” than they would
do worrying about contamination of honey from Apistan. There are no recorded
cases of poisoning from Apistan use in beehives of either beekeepers or honey
consumers that I am aware of. If pyrethroids are slipping into the human food
chain, the most likely place to start looking is in the sanitation practices
in the commercial kitchen.
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2000 09:17:08 -0400
Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology
Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology
From: Peter Borst
Subject: Moderation
In-Reply-To: <200009060400.AAA03407@listserv.albany.edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
At 12:00 AM 9/6/00 -0400, Allen wrote:
>My only interest in this matter is that of a moderator. A moderator's job
>is to try to ensure balance and, well, moderation.
I hope people take Allen's word to heart. I recently joined another
beekeeping list which is un-moderated and I much prefer to read the
moderated list. The general absence of wild theorizing and the effort to be
scientific is a relief.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Peter Borst
plb6@cornell.edu
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2000 12:29:49 -0400
Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology
Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology
From: "Lipscomb, Al"
Subject: Re: Moderation
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
>I hope people take Allen's word to heart. I recently joined another
>beekeeping list which is un-moderated and I much prefer to read the
>moderated list. The general absence of wild theorizing and the effort to be
>scientific is a relief.
We all need to be thankful of the work the moderators do for the list. But
one small correction can be made to your post, we do not need to be
scientific: just informed. Part of that is checking the archives for
information before posting and then asking a good question. I have found
that the better the question the better the answer.
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2000 13:46:57 -0400
Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology
Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology
From: "W. Allen Dick"
Subject: Re: worker bee & sizecell size
For sake of accuracy, I should mention that on consulting Mark
Winston's "The Biology of the Honey Bee", I discovered that the German
black bee is apparently bigger, not smaller compared to Italian bees.
On Fri, 1 Sep 2000 23:42:49 -0600, Allen Dick wrote:
> ...such as the old English bee or the German black bee. These
> latter bees are smaller and were popular around the turn of the
> 20th century.
I don't know what this correction does to my argument, but I do seem to
recall that the feral bees in many areas of North America (and Hawaii as
well) were known to be smaller and meaner than the bees that were
introduced as the century progressed.
Maybe someone else has researched this or recalls from reading?
What about the English black bees?
allen
---
A Beekeeper's Diary: http://www.internode.net/HoneyBee/Diary/
Package bees, winter loss, fondant, Pierco vs. Permadent vs. dark comb,
unwrapping, splitting, raising queens, AFB, varroa, protein patties, moving
bees, pollination experiences, daily mumblings and more... Thousands
served... Updated today.
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2000 20:27:58 +0200
Reply-To: Jorn_Johanesson@apimo.dk
Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology
From: Jorn Johanesson
Subject: News about beekeeping software!
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
I have now performed a heavy revision and bug fix on Bidata and have
expanded the queen breeder mode.
I got help from a professional programmer , against payment (1500USD), to
get this software to perform error free. It has now succeeded in running
stable and without errors on my computer for 14 days and all functions have
been tested. This edition have taken all my money from my bank account set
aside for Apimondia in South Africa, and because I am unemployed and living
from work insurance, this will be the last public update from my Hand. Those
with big registration will still get information of updates coming.
There is following news in the software.
If the queen is changed the old queen will be preserved in a special
database, so that she can be used in further expansions of the queen breeder
mode.
If you wish an Automatic generated queen identification will be made. It
consist of the following elements.
up to four chars in initials followed by a number determining the race of
bees. then two numbers determining the year the queen is introduced. then
up to a number of 2million as a serial number and then a slash and the
number of the hive where the queen first is introduced. Additional can be
added the queen line in the form of F00, F001 up to F99.
The queen line can be obtained from a dropdown list. This should assure a
unique number for all queens. there are space for 99999 queens. and up to 2
billions records in the database so even with a unusual number of hive notes
I don't think you will run out of space.
A queen number could look like this:
JJoh30030-30F00
In my system the number 3 after the initials stands for Buckfast. This
number by the way can be obtained from a dropdown list. The queen serial
number will be shown both in the queen numbers and a special field (read
Only)
there can be given up to five drone sources to the queens.
By the way the queen breeder input follows the Swedish Queen breeder
register card. and all points are included.
also is a change made so that when a new bee year starts (a new database is
automatic created) a list of queens from last Year will be shown, so that
queens still present can be imported to the new Bee Year.
I know that a software of this kind always will be a compromise, but I have
been concerned of being so all-round as possible.
because my financial situation is bad, I will ask you to get the update
yourself.
http://apimo.dk/programs/bidatawin95_98_update4.exe
this will be the last public update if membership of EDBi is not maintained
or the software is not paid for otherwise.
Best regards
Jorn Johanesson
EDBi = Multilingual software for beekeeping since 1997
home page = HTTP:\\apimo.dk
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2000 17:07:51 -0700
Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology
Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology
From: John Edwards
Organization: Hayden Bee Research Center, USDA-ARS,Tucson, Arizona
Subject: It's TUCSON, not Tuscon or Tewson or Twoson
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Since we have become a subject of interest, how about everybody learning how
to spell Tucson ??
Thanks.
- John, Tucson {;-))
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2000 17:15:15 -0700
Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology
Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology
From: John Edwards
Organization: Hayden Bee Research Center, USDA-ARS,Tucson, Arizona
Subject: Re: (no subject)-mite-resistance
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Robert Brenchley wrote:
> Allen Dick writes:
>
> < Others worldwide are finding that in a few generations they can reduce the
> varroa
>
>
> This is hopeful news; where can I learn more? If this is true, then
> either the bees are developing a degree of resistance,
The resistance is there in every population, just as resistance to foulbrood or
acarine mites or cold weather or .... The trick is in the selection for the
stocks you want. These are not yeasts which mutate under habitat pressure to
become more resistant within a few weeks (I'm not even sure that statement is
true).
- John Edwards, Tucson, Arizona
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2000 17:31:35 -0700
Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology
Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology
From: John Edwards
Organization: Hayden Bee Research Center, USDA-ARS,Tucson, Arizona
Subject: Re: Life in a spermatheca
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Ted Hancock wrote:
> Can anyone tell me exactly how a spermatheca works? Specifically what
> mechanism is used to deliver spermatozoa to the egg? Are several (dozen?
> thousand?) squirted on to the egg or is only one spermatozoan released per
> egg? If it's more than one, how are the extra done away with when an
> unfertilized egg is laid? After eight years of swimming around in a
> spermatheca, do the spermatozoa become any less viable?
FINALLY, a subject I have actually worked on. The spermatheca seems to
store the sperm in a quiescent state - the outer covering of tracheoles, once
thought to supply oxygen, was proved by H.K. Poole (and me) to be only a
support structure over an impermeable sphere. The sperm are released (by the
sperm pump, a small hook-shaped structure on the side of the sptha.) in small
groups to fertilize the eggs - I don't know how quickly it can be turned off,
but I suspect there is some overlap ( a few fertilized eggs in drone cells,
and vice-versa). See the publications of Taber (1950s-1970s), Poole (late
1960s-early 1970s), the Koenigers from Germany, possibly Woyke of Poland.
As for eight-year-old sperm and queens, I believe that would be a little
optimistic. Two years is do-able, three is pushing it.
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2000 18:16:43 -0700
Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology
Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology
From: John Edwards
Organization: Hayden Bee Research Center, USDA-ARS,Tucson, Arizona
Subject: Re: worker bee & sizecell size
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
"W. Allen Dick" wrote:
> ...... but I do seem to
> recall that the feral bees in many areas of North America (and Hawaii as
> well) were known to be smaller and meaner than the bees that were
> introduced as the century progressed.
>
> Maybe someone else has researched this or recalls from reading?
Somebody's theory - sorry I forgot the name - Russian ?? - from the early 1900s
maintains that many insects within a species naturally vary in regard to the
latitude where they are found (and adapted). This fits the size and shape of
the AHB from tropical Africa, as I remember. He is usually quoted in relation
to body size, wing length, and leg length. I will ask around here tomorrow -
I'm sure Hayward Spangler knows the reference.
-----------------------------------------------------------
John F. Edwards
Carl Hayden Bee Research Center
Agricultural Research Service - USDA
Tucson, Arizona 85719
http://gears.tucson.ars.ag.gov/home/edwards/edwards.html
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2000 18:35:56 -0700
Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology
Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology
From: John Edwards
Organization: Hayden Bee Research Center, USDA-ARS,Tucson, Arizona
Subject: Re: African bee/cell size 4.9
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
darn@FREENET.EDMONTON.AB.CA wrote:
> .......Is it possible that one of the reasons that Africanised honey
> bees
> tend to replace European honeybees is that we give no drone comb to
> our bees, resulting in an artificial scarcity of European drones?
Steve Taber mentioned back in the 1970s that large colonies in Hawaii had
maybe thirty percent drones, and had no problem making tons of honey - he
was always an advocate of letting the bees build in patches of free-style
come for drones.
-----------------------------------------------------------
John F. Edwards
Biological Lab. Technician
"Feral Bee Tracker and AHB Identifier"
Tucson, Arizona 85719
http://gears.tucson.ars.ag.gov/home/edwards/edwards.html
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2000 14:55:30 +1200
Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology
Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology
From: Robert Mann
Subject: what fraction drones?
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
John F. Edwards Biological Lab. Technician
"Feral Bee Tracker and AHB Identifier" wrote:
>Steve Taber mentioned back in the 1970s that large colonies in Hawaii had
>maybe thirty percent drones, and had no problem making tons of honey - he
>was always an advocate of letting the bees build in patches of free-style
>comb for drones.
The question of whether to limit the amount of drone comb, in
attempt to limit the fraction of drones in the hive, has arisen in New
Zealand's varroa emergency.
I see no basis for preferring any arrangement above what the bees
themselves arrange. What theory could justify such an intervention?
It may seem far-fetched to those who wish to evade the political
realities of the day, but we can expect truculent male-haters of our
species to project that antagonism onto the innocent bee species. The
stated theoretical basis is that varroa breed mainly in drone brood and
therefore if we artificially restrict the amount of drone brood to some
arbitrary limit we will limit the varroa population. Is this a
well-founded hypothesis?
R
-
Robt Mann
consultant ecologist
P O Box 28878 Remuera, Auckland 1005, New Zealand
(9) 524 2949
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2000 21:43:24 EDT
Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology
Sender: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology
From: John Mitchell